To my mind, the test is whether the speaker is, or is not, inciting the commission of a crime.
Fair enough. Try this
"I think Alex Kurtzmann should be killed. His inability to understand even the basics of the Star Trek franchise has disfigured my life and my life would be immeasurably improved if he was killed and his body fed to sharks pour encourager les autres. I am not a cruel person and do not require the death to be protracted nor painful, but I do honestly want him dead ASAP"
So do I get arrested now?
I think that anyone who read that would know that it was not intended seriously.
Labour probably wouldn't be making these controversial policy announcements if they were only 5% ahead in the polls
Changing the vote to 16 or 17 is not something to do lightly. The age of adulthood varies across topics - I find it odd that you have to be 18 to buy a pint of alcohol in the pub but would be able to vote two years earlier. Now the argument may be about physical maturity vs mental, but I don't think there is a clear cut off point. Some argue that girls mentally mature faster than boys, so why not girls at 16 and boys at 18?
In truth, just as most feel that the voter ID law was about restricting anti-Tory votes, so votes for 16 and 17 year olds will be seen as boosting left wing votes. Would those who condemned the first have the same issues with the second?
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Does any politician or party propose changes to the electoral system unless they think it is to their advantage?
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
Did Starmer raise it? It was part of his leadership manifesto back in 2020. That was the only substance to what the Brexit press reported on over the weekend to induce the "Why are EU citizens getting a vote" grumbling on here yesterday. Starmer today says they havent got a policy on it yet but they are considering it.
Far more likely it was driven by the Brexit press than Starmer/Labour imo.
If we hit the limit, “the president’s least bad option is to violate the debt ceiling by continuing to borrow money, because at least that way he’s not completely making up legislative policy” by deciding which debts to pay & whom to leave out in the cold. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1658060747929276418
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/14/supreme-court-debt-limit-14th-amendment-00096784 ...Even as staff-level meetings continue and some participants see glimmers of hope for a deal to raise the debt ceiling, some Biden allies, including noted constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, are urging the White House to keep the 14th Amendment option on the table. The amendment’s public debt clause says “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” Some scholars argue that this provision makes the debt-ceiling statute unconstitutional – meaning that, if Congress failed to raise the ceiling, the Treasury Department would have the authority to ignore the ceiling and continue issuing new debt to pay the nation’s bills...,/i>
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
Where do we stand when Frosty is parachuted into the HoC like a chisel toned Marine?
From your original list. Mordaunt, too woke, Tugs, too normal, so it has to be Stevie B.
@HYUFD does have his finger on the pulse of the court battles of the Tories, so I have a few quid at good odds on Barclay.
The coming electoral tsunami could take out a lot of potential candidates, or their supporters.
I assume the same people bellowing about the state of the Scottish NHS being a disqualification for Yousaf becoming leader & FM will feel the same about the at least as bad state of the English NHS in relation to Barclay.
SAme with transport - ferries may be in a fankle but look at DfT, though the ferries could and should be a lot better given that rail is in a lot better position north of the border, accoreding to repeated assessments by Modern Railways.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.
I can see why- two people slagging each other off makes for better telly. Or more entertaining telly. Boring centrists are... boring. Rory Stewart is trying his best to be an interesting centrist, but that's not enough.
Does it make better TV? Not convinced, although I accept it is formulaic TV that is easy and cheap to produce. Turns a lot of people off though even if they are interested in the subject.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Jersey apparently allows all residents to vote after 2 years.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
I disagree with the reduction in the age of voting but that is more of a philosophical argument and one we have been discussing over the last few days.
But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens
Thanks to @Cyclefree for the article, which I read with some interest. I am saddened but not surprised that after an article extolling the virtue of free speech, the comments section (with some creditable exceptions) promptly filled with people listing what they consider to be exceptions. My view on this is wearily pragmatic: free speech does not exist in the UK and the only task of the statistician is to measure it - if we are going to oppress speech then at least let's be honest about what is and is not oppressed. I would prefer the US method - see these [here][here] for examples - but we don't live there, do we.
See, though, contemporary Florida.
This is true. OK, the good States.
[As a rough rule of thumb: if it was in the Confederacy it is crap. Sorry, N'awlins, but dem's the rules]
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Does any politician or party propose changes to the electoral system unless they think it is to their advantage?
Yes; the SNP's continued advocacy for PR after their 2015 win was an example.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
I hesitate to intrude upon a meme with facts, but wasn’t it because the actual ferry schedule didn’t fit with Slater’s timetable hence the water taxi, a not uncommon method of transport on an island of 40? But what would those who live there know?
You're correct, and the Rum ferry doesn't go every day.
It's not brilliant PR though, particularly given the issues with MV Lochnevis previously and the use of the old and tiny MV Loch Bhrushda instead.
On the topic of the picture, it would be a real shame if Kinloch Castle went. It is such a mad place.
Surely we could flog it to Elon. I'm sure he would love to reinstate the alligators.
Turtles, not alligators, I think? They - or at least turtles anyway - were kept alive in a heated pool in the greenhouse till the next posh dinner came around. ISTR seeing the pool in what was left of the greenhouses c. 1980.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
Did Starmer raise it? It was part of his leadership manifesto back in 2020. That was the only substance to what the Brexit press reported on over the weekend to induce the "Why are EU citizens getting a vote" grumbling on here yesterday. Starmer today says they havent got a policy on it yet but they are considering it.
Far more likely it was driven by the Brexit press than Starmer/Labour imo.
It seems the story started with Lord Cruddas at the new Boris CDO wing of the Tory party.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Jersey apparently allows all residents to vote after 2 years.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
I disagree with the reduction in the age of voting but that is more of a philosophical argument and one we have been discussing over the last few days.
But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens
Apart from historical anomalies, why would any country allow non-citizens the vote?
If you want to vote, then take citizenship, in the UK there’s a clear application process available to long-term residents.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Does any politician or party propose changes to the electoral system unless they think it is to their advantage?
Yes; the SNP's continued advocacy for PR after their 2015 win was an example.
That doesn't really follow. They could think that PR would still give them better outcomes most of the time, even if they had a bumper result under the current system. I'd be genuinely quite surprised if any party has a policy that they believe would substantially impare their election results.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Does any politician or party propose changes to the electoral system unless they think it is to their advantage?
Yes; the SNP's continued advocacy for PR after their 2015 win was an example.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
I hesitate to intrude upon a meme with facts, but wasn’t it because the actual ferry schedule didn’t fit with Slater’s timetable hence the water taxi, a not uncommon method of transport on an island of 40? But what would those who live there know?
You're correct, and the Rum ferry doesn't go every day.
It's not brilliant PR though, particularly given the issues with MV Lochnevis previously and the use of the old and tiny MV Loch Bhrushda instead.
On the topic of the picture, it would be a real shame if Kinloch Castle went. It is such a mad place.
Surely we could flog it to Elon. I'm sure he would love to reinstate the alligators.
Turtles, not alligators, I think? They - or at least turtles anyway - were kept alive in a heated pool in the greenhouse till the next posh dinner came around. ISTR seeing the pool in what was left of the greenhouses c. 1980.
I remember the big lion skin and the "Orchestrian".
I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Does any politician or party propose changes to the electoral system unless they think it is to their advantage?
Yes; the SNP's continued advocacy for PR after their 2015 win was an example.
"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."
It's not just any old belief, though, is it?
According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...
And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.
Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.
It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.
I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter
He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”
An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself
In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.
During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.
Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.
Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.
The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!
(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)
He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly
The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.
I hesitate to intrude upon a meme with facts, but wasn’t it because the actual ferry schedule didn’t fit with Slater’s timetable hence the water taxi, a not uncommon method of transport on an island of 40? But what would those who live there know?
You're correct, and the Rum ferry doesn't go every day.
It's not brilliant PR though, particularly given the issues with MV Lochnevis previously and the use of the old and tiny MV Loch Bhrushda instead.
On the topic of the picture, it would be a real shame if Kinloch Castle went. It is such a mad place.
Surely we could flog it to Elon. I'm sure he would love to reinstate the alligators.
Turtles, not alligators, I think? They - or at least turtles anyway - were kept alive in a heated pool in the greenhouse till the next posh dinner came around. ISTR seeing the pool in what was left of the greenhouses c. 1980.
I remember the big lion skin and the "Orchestrian".
Ivory eagle (a lectern?), snow leopard skin on the piano, those weird steampunk combined shower/bath/bidet/hydrotherapy machines ...
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.
I can see why- two people slagging each other off makes for better telly. Or more entertaining telly. Boring centrists are... boring. Rory Stewart is trying his best to be an interesting centrist, but that's not enough.
Does it make better TV? Not convinced, although I accept it is formulaic TV that is easy and cheap to produce. Turns a lot of people off though even if they are interested in the subject.
Surely the whole point of having an organisation such as the BBC, is that it should seek to better inform the people, without needing to reference to what makes “better TV” for news and current affairs programming?
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Does any politician or party propose changes to the electoral system unless they think it is to their advantage?
Yes; the SNP's continued advocacy for PR after their 2015 win was an example.
That doesn't really follow. They could think that PR would still give them better outcomes most of the time, even if they had a bumper result under the current system. I'd be genuinely quite surprised if any party has a policy that they believe would substantially impare their election results.
I don't know what to say when you've been given a pretty clear example and you just dismiss it.
I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...
Forced smile as his team is relegated. That's quite the metaphor.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan.
He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.
Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.
You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.
The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say
“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”
And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.
You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.
There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆
32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?
You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.
You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆
Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
Where do we stand when Frosty is parachuted into the HoC like a chisel toned Marine?
From your original list. Mordaunt, too woke, Tugs, too normal, so it has to be Stevie B.
@HYUFD does have his finger on the pulse of the court battles of the Tories, so I have a few quid at good odds on Barclay.
The coming electoral tsunami could take out a lot of potential candidates, or their supporters.
I assume the same people bellowing about the state of the Scottish NHS being a disqualification for Yousaf becoming leader & FM will feel the same about the at least as bad state of the English NHS in relation to Barclay.
SAme with transport - ferries may be in a fankle but look at DfT, though the ferries could and should be a lot better given that rail is in a lot better position north of the border, accoreding to repeated assessments by Modern Railways.
See also the English judiciary taking the ages of convicted rapists into account when sentencing. The England-Scotland border is a one way prism apparently.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Jersey apparently allows all residents to vote after 2 years.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Jersey apparently allows all residents to vote after 2 years.
Hardly a convincing argument.
No. Just thought you might be interested.
Apologies. My response was sharper than you deserved.
I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...
The 'weak' thing is odd. The are plenty of criticisms of Starmer, but he's been ruthless in his leadership of Labour. Weak, I don't see.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.
It's discriminatory, that's what it is. Why should Cypriots get a vote and Belgians not?
I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...
The 'weak' thing is odd. The are plenty of criticisms of Starmer, but he's been ruthless in his leadership of Labour. Weak, I don't see.
Thanks to @Cyclefree for the article, which I read with some interest. I am saddened but not surprised that after an article extolling the virtue of free speech, the comments section (with some creditable exceptions) promptly filled with people listing what they consider to be exceptions. My view on this is wearily pragmatic: free speech does not exist in the UK and the only task of the statistician is to measure it - if we are going to oppress speech then at least let's be honest about what is and is not oppressed. I would prefer the US method - see these [here][here] for examples - but we don't live there, do we.
See, though, contemporary Florida.
This is true. OK, the good States.
[As a rough rule of thumb: if it was in the Confederacy it is crap. Sorry, N'awlins, but dem's the rules]
It's a good illustration of the difference between free speech laws, and free speech practice.
Without some social consensus on the latter, the former are only of limited value.
I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...
The 'weak' thing is odd. The are plenty of criticisms of Starmer, but he's been ruthless in his leadership of Labour. Weak, I don't see.
Perhaps they mean weak in defence of his own party and its core principles, despite being strong in his attacks on his own party - a weak/strong dichotomy he shares with Rishi Sunak.
Thanks. That's interesting. The opinion seems to lean very heavily on a single Employment Tribunal judgment to support a list of assertions about case law having established that various beliefs about gender are "philosophical beliefs", and therefore protected under the Equality Act.
It seems a rather crucial point, and I wonder why only a single judgment is cited in support of it, in an opinion running to 52 pages.
A KC’s job is to turn a thin case into a large weighty document that demonstrates the inevitability of their forthcoming victory in court to the poor sod who is on the receiving end.
I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...
Was BJO the only respondent?
Well, at the very bottom we can see the word "twat", so...
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.
I can see why- two people slagging each other off makes for better telly. Or more entertaining telly. Boring centrists are... boring. Rory Stewart is trying his best to be an interesting centrist, but that's not enough.
Perhaps they should try having two weather forecasters with opposing ideas of what the weather will be and how it should be presented.
Apparently the EU national voting proposal is only for a limited number who have been here for a lengthy period of time.
If that’s the case why bother causing a lot of drama and an open goal for Tory attacks .
Not sure who in Labour thought it was a good idea to come up with this proposal . They’ve allowed the Tories to now add on other things to this policy and suggest its a sinister plot to rig a future EU referendum !
All this after recovering a large amount of Red Wall voters .
Clueless and shooting yourself in the foot . I say this as a Labour supporter .
The latest (Completely undeserved) move in for POTUS ?
Robert F Kennedy Jr into 24-1 !
@HYUFD should know that Mike "The cuck" Pence has drifted to 259-1.
If we still had 0.5% interest rates, that would be a great lay.
I've got a whole basket of has beens & never-weres & simply won't bes at about -£900 (Michelle Obama, The Rock, Tucker Carlson, Gavin Newsom, Liz Cheney, Joe Manchin & various others) so it didn't cost me any net cash to lay Bobby Kennedy.
My only real betting errors have been on DeSantis & Trump, but the Democrat side has been golden and overall the book is looking good.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
I disagree with the reduction in the age of voting but that is more of a philosophical argument and one we have been discussing over the last few days.
But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens
Apart from historical anomalies, why would any country allow non-citizens the vote?
If you want to vote, then take citizenship, in the UK there’s a clear application process available to long-term residents.
Indeed. Nor is it particularly arduous as a process. In the last 2 years I have acted as referee for 4 people to take British citizenship - 2 Vietnamese, a Pole and a Venezuelan. All had good English language skills which made it easier but it was a relatively straight forward process for them.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
I disagree with the reduction in the age of voting but that is more of a philosophical argument and one we have been discussing over the last few days.
But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens
Apart from historical anomalies, why would any country allow non-citizens the vote?
If you want to vote, then take citizenship, in the UK there’s a clear application process available to long-term residents.
Indeed. Nor is it particularly arduous as a process. In the last 2 years I have acted as referee for 4 people to take British citizenship - 2 Vietnamese, a Pole and a Venezuelan. All had good English language skills which made it easier but it was a relatively straight forward process for them.
It costs over £1000 to apply. A lot of people don't have that kind of money lying around.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.
It makes perfect sense. If people want to take part in deciding the future of a country then they should make the effort, show commitment and get citizenship.
Indeed we should be removing the franchise for Commonwealth citizens. It is a bit of colonial flotsam that has no place in a modern democracy.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.
It's discriminatory, that's what it is. Why should Cypriots get a vote and Belgians not?
I don’t have an issue with the policy but many will and that’s why I’m criticizing it . And now it’s being watered down so it’s a lot of political capital used for not much on return .
The vast majority of the public don’t even know Commonwealth citizens can vote in GEs.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.
It's discriminatory, that's what it is. Why should Cypriots get a vote and Belgians not?
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.
It's discriminatory, that's what it is. Why should Cypriots get a vote and Belgians not?
If Belgium joined the Commonwealth they would get the vote.
The latest (Completely undeserved) move in for POTUS ?
Robert F Kennedy Jr into 24-1 !
@HYUFD should know that Mike "The cuck" Pence has drifted to 259-1.
All the better, with Trump now having lost a civil verdict of sexual assault but still despising DeSantis while last week calling Pence 'a nice man who made a mistake on 6th Jan', Pence could be bet of the decade. For the GOP nomination anyway even if he ends up like fellow former VP Mondale to President Biden's Reagan in the general (Haley for Geraldine Ferraro?)
If Trump's legal problems force him out or see him fall short the odds are he would now endorse Pence over DeSantis which would get Pence the delegates and support from the MAGA crowd he needs to be nominee
Labour probably wouldn't be making these controversial policy announcements if they were only 5% ahead in the polls
That's the lesson the Conservatives have to learn, and the sooner the better.
In general, more mainstream wins General Elections. If party A goes way off the edges to please itself (Corbyn, Hague/IDS/Howard, Kinnock/Foot), party B can go pretty radical and still be the more mainstream of the big two.
It's baffling that the Conservative government have looked at late-era Corbyn Labour (indulging your own obsessions, telling moderates to go way and join the other lot- or words to that effect) and thought "yes, we'll have some of that please".
They haven't yet. Whatever Sunak is he ain't Corbyn. If in Opposition the Tories end up electing Jacob Rees Mogg as their leader via the membership then they will have their Corbyn, a leader the base love even if the swing voters don't. They aren't their yet
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.
It makes perfect sense. If people want to take part in deciding the future of a country then they should make the effort, show commitment and get citizenship.
Indeed we should be removing the franchise for Commonwealth citizens. It is a bit of colonial flotsam that has no place in a modern democracy.
I wonder who the Commonwealth voters favour? If the Tories ditched them for the reasons you give, would the opposition kick off?
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Does any politician or party propose changes to the electoral system unless they think it is to their advantage?
Yes; the SNP's continued advocacy for PR after their 2015 win was an example.
That doesn't really follow. They could think that PR would still give them better outcomes most of the time, even if they had a bumper result under the current system. I'd be genuinely quite surprised if any party has a policy that they believe would substantially impare their election results.
I don't know what to say when you've been given a pretty clear example and you just dismiss it.
Most (all?) parties that favour PR do so because they feel underrepresented, as the SNP has claimed to be in the past. So good for the SNP for sticking with PR, even though I suspect that's because over the long term they would still see it as benefitting the party. That's not quite the same as a party having a policy which they expect to harm their results. I genuinely can't think of anything where a party has proposed something that would make it harder for them to win seats or elections.
Labour probably wouldn't be making these controversial policy announcements if they were only 5% ahead in the polls
Changing the vote to 16 or 17 is not something to do lightly. The age of adulthood varies across topics - I find it odd that you have to be 18 to buy a pint of alcohol in the pub but would be able to vote two years earlier. Now the argument may be about physical maturity vs mental, but I don't think there is a clear cut off point. Some argue that girls mentally mature faster than boys, so why not girls at 16 and boys at 18?
In truth, just as most feel that the voter ID law was about restricting anti-Tory votes, so votes for 16 and 17 year olds will be seen as boosting left wing votes. Would those who condemned the first have the same issues with the second?
I think widening (within reason) the franchise thoughtfully, whether advantageous to one side or another is less problematic that a coverall vote suppression tactic that could limit several hundred thousand people from voting for limited political gain.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.
I can see why- two people slagging each other off makes for better telly. Or more entertaining telly. Boring centrists are... boring. Rory Stewart is trying his best to be an interesting centrist, but that's not enough.
Perhaps they should try having two weather forecasters with opposing ideas of what the weather will be and how it should be presented.
This is not necessary. Any weather forecaster worth their salt should be giving you at least two different potential outcomes.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
I disagree with the reduction in the age of voting but that is more of a philosophical argument and one we have been discussing over the last few days.
But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens
Apart from historical anomalies, why would any country allow non-citizens the vote?
If you want to vote, then take citizenship, in the UK there’s a clear application process available to long-term residents.
Indeed. Nor is it particularly arduous as a process. In the last 2 years I have acted as referee for 4 people to take British citizenship - 2 Vietnamese, a Pole and a Venezuelan. All had good English language skills which made it easier but it was a relatively straight forward process for them.
It costs over £1000 to apply. A lot of people don't have that kind of money lying around.
1000 quid to vote in a general election is a lot. Most people wouldn't pay it.
And there are many countries that don't allow dual citizenship. If you have all the rights of permanent residency in the UK, it is difficult to give up the citizenship of the country you are from, where you may still have family that you might conceivably need to take care of at some point for example, just in order to secure a vote in a general election.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
Does any politician or party propose changes to the electoral system unless they think it is to their advantage?
Yes; the SNP's continued advocacy for PR after their 2015 win was an example.
That doesn't really follow. They could think that PR would still give them better outcomes most of the time, even if they had a bumper result under the current system. I'd be genuinely quite surprised if any party has a policy that they believe would substantially impare their election results.
I don't know what to say when you've been given a pretty clear example and you just dismiss it.
Most (all?) parties that favour PR do so because they feel underrepresented, as the SNP has claimed to be in the past. So good for the SNP for sticking with PR, even though I suspect that's because over the long term they would still see it as benefitting the party. That's not quite the same as a party having a policy which they expect to harm their results. I genuinely can't think of anything where a party has proposed something that would make it harder for them to win seats or elections.
This is like those tedious arguments where people claim that there are no unselfish acts. "Ah, but if you get a good feeling from it, you're getting something out of it!!!1!" Even though what you're saying is probably true in the majority of cases, but when presented with a really clear counterexample you're making speculative assumptions that I think you simply won't do in other cases. For example, a large sector of foreign nationals in the UK is those born in Poland. A lot of them have a fairly socially conservative outlook. Would adding them to UK elections benefit Labour? I'm am really not so sure it would.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
I disagree with the reduction in the age of voting but that is more of a philosophical argument and one we have been discussing over the last few days.
But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens
Apart from historical anomalies, why would any country allow non-citizens the vote?
If you want to vote, then take citizenship, in the UK there’s a clear application process available to long-term residents.
Some people have a clear life-long commitment to this country having moved from somewhere else, and so the expense and inconvenience of obtaining UK citizenship (perhaps involving having to give up their first citizenship) makes sense. Some people are only passing through, working or studying for a few years before going home or moving to a third country. But there is a middle group who may be here for five or ten years or more, paying taxes, perhaps raising a family here, who for whatever reason haven't got UK citizenship. I think for this group the principle of no taxation without representation starts to apply - I have been in this situation myself in fact, when living abroad for a prolonged period, so I sympathise with them. I think there is a case that this group of people deserve to have their voice heard, whether they have a British passport or not.
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.
I can see why- two people slagging each other off makes for better telly. Or more entertaining telly. Boring centrists are... boring. Rory Stewart is trying his best to be an interesting centrist, but that's not enough.
Perhaps they should try having two weather forecasters with opposing ideas of what the weather will be and how it should be presented.
Some woman called into the BBC and said there’s going to be a hurricane tonight. Don’t worry, there’s not going to be a hurricane…
I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.
I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.
There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.
The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.
I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.
Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?
That's really not the case. "A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.
You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though. Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.
I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.
Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.
I can see why- two people slagging each other off makes for better telly. Or more entertaining telly. Boring centrists are... boring. Rory Stewart is trying his best to be an interesting centrist, but that's not enough.
Perhaps they should try having two weather forecasters with opposing ideas of what the weather will be and how it should be presented.
Some woman called into the BBC and said there’s going to be a hurricane tonight. Don’t worry, there’s not going to be a hurricane…
This is like those tedious arguments where people claim that there are no unselfish acts. "Ah, but if you get a good feeling from it, you're getting something out of it!!!1!" Even though what you're saying is probably true in the majority of cases, but when presented with a really clear counterexample you're making speculative assumptions that I think you simply won't do in other cases. For example, a large sector of foreign nationals in the UK is those born in Poland. A lot of them have a fairly socially conservative outlook. Would adding them to UK elections benefit Labour? I'm am really not so sure it would.
I do get your point, and concede that the SNP sticking to their guns with PR does suggest it was a matter of principle rather than a policy to improve election results. I still can't think of any party proposing something that would harm their outcomes, such ideas don't make it through the party machine for obvious reasons.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.
It makes perfect sense. If people want to take part in deciding the future of a country then they should make the effort, show commitment and get citizenship.
Indeed we should be removing the franchise for Commonwealth citizens. It is a bit of colonial flotsam that has no place in a modern democracy.
I wonder who the Commonwealth voters favour? If the Tories ditched them for the reasons you give, would the opposition kick off?
I think history makes keeping it inevitable, but restricting the franchise to permanent residents is something to support.
Labour probably wouldn't be making these controversial policy announcements if they were only 5% ahead in the polls
That's the lesson the Conservatives have to learn, and the sooner the better.
In general, more mainstream wins General Elections. If party A goes way off the edges to please itself (Corbyn, Hague/IDS/Howard, Kinnock/Foot), party B can go pretty radical and still be the more mainstream of the big two.
It's baffling that the Conservative government have looked at late-era Corbyn Labour (indulging your own obsessions, telling moderates to go way and join the other lot- or words to that effect) and thought "yes, we'll have some of that please".
They haven't yet. Whatever Sunak is he ain't Corbyn. If in Opposition the Tories end up electing Jacob Rees Mogg as their leader via the membership then they will have their Corbyn, a leader the base love even if the swing voters don't. They aren't their yet
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.
We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.
It makes perfect sense. If people want to take part in deciding the future of a country then they should make the effort, show commitment and get citizenship.
Indeed we should be removing the franchise for Commonwealth citizens. It is a bit of colonial flotsam that has no place in a modern democracy.
I wonder who the Commonwealth voters favour? If the Tories ditched them for the reasons you give, would the opposition kick off?
I think history makes keeping it inevitable, but restricting the franchise to permanent residents is something to support.
Couldn't we just change it to "Commonwealth citizens born before 2005" and let it roll off over time, not having to actively take away the vote from anyone who already has it?
I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...
The 'weak' thing is odd. The are plenty of criticisms of Starmer, but he's been ruthless in his leadership of Labour. Weak, I don't see.
It’s a hideous word cloud for Starmer. It should be a worry for Labour, because the best way of all to use word clouds is to put em down in a line from old to new, and look for how things are trending.
If your a fine psephologist like me, you also compare the trend from the word clouds - where negative words to describe Starmer are becoming more plentiful and bigger with each one, with other measurements like approval, disapproval charts.
The Opinium approval from Saturday shows Starmer sharply going the wrong way for the last eight months.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
I disagree with the reduction in the age of voting but that is more of a philosophical argument and one we have been discussing over the last few days.
But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens
Apart from historical anomalies, why would any country allow non-citizens the vote?
If you want to vote, then take citizenship, in the UK there’s a clear application process available to long-term residents.
Indeed. Nor is it particularly arduous as a process. In the last 2 years I have acted as referee for 4 people to take British citizenship - 2 Vietnamese, a Pole and a Venezuelan. All had good English language skills which made it easier but it was a relatively straight forward process for them.
It costs over £1000 to apply. A lot of people don't have that kind of money lying around.
1000 quid to vote in a general election is a lot. Most people wouldn't pay it.
And there are many countries that don't allow dual citizenship. If you have all the rights of permanent residency in the UK, it is difficult to give up the citizenship of the country you are from, where you may still have family that you might conceivably need to take care of at some point for example, just in order to secure a vote in a general election.
If you are not willing to commit to the country then you should not be able to vote on its future. This is the principle followed by all other European countries.
So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.
I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.
It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).
On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.
I disagree with the reduction in the age of voting but that is more of a philosophical argument and one we have been discussing over the last few days.
But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens
Apart from historical anomalies, why would any country allow non-citizens the vote?
If you want to vote, then take citizenship, in the UK there’s a clear application process available to long-term residents.
Indeed. Nor is it particularly arduous as a process. In the last 2 years I have acted as referee for 4 people to take British citizenship - 2 Vietnamese, a Pole and a Venezuelan. All had good English language skills which made it easier but it was a relatively straight forward process for them.
It costs over £1000 to apply. A lot of people don't have that kind of money lying around.
1000 quid to vote in a general election is a lot. Most people wouldn't pay it.
And there are many countries that don't allow dual citizenship. If you have all the rights of permanent residency in the UK, it is difficult to give up the citizenship of the country you are from, where you may still have family that you might conceivably need to take care of at some point for example, just in order to secure a vote in a general election.
Do you not think that the many countries that don't allow dual citizenship (including Germany, with a few exceptions) have a point?
Personal big up for Rishi from Zelensky. He's just left Chequers, perhaps to have a look around Boris' new Oxfordshire gaf.
The BBC bigging up Rishi too (on BBC News International).
“Boris' new Oxfordshire gaf“
I don’t know what I would do with such a big house. What’s the point of it? Running costs give you value for money, compared to how you use it?
I know people with houses that size. The running costs are astronomical.
Those manicured lawns don’t cut themelves, and that swimming pool doesn’t clean itself either. Easily £100k a year in general maintenance, before you try and upgrade anything.
Comments
In truth, just as most feel that the voter ID law was about restricting anti-Tory votes, so votes for 16 and 17 year olds will be seen as boosting left wing votes. Would those who condemned the first have the same issues with the second?
Far more likely it was driven by the Brexit press than Starmer/Labour imo.
If we hit the limit, “the president’s least bad option is to violate the debt ceiling by continuing to borrow money, because at least that way he’s not completely making up legislative policy” by deciding which debts to pay & whom to leave out in the cold.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1658060747929276418
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/14/supreme-court-debt-limit-14th-amendment-00096784
...Even as staff-level meetings continue and some participants see glimmers of hope for a deal to raise the debt ceiling, some Biden allies, including noted constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, are urging the White House to keep the 14th Amendment option on the table. The amendment’s public debt clause says “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” Some scholars argue that this provision makes the debt-ceiling statute unconstitutional – meaning that, if Congress failed to raise the ceiling, the Treasury Department would have the authority to ignore the ceiling and continue issuing new debt to pay the nation’s bills...,/i>
But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens
[As a rough rule of thumb: if it was in the Confederacy it is crap. Sorry, N'awlins, but dem's the rules]
https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1657663668102868992
If you want to vote, then take citizenship, in the UK there’s a clear application process available to long-term residents.
The BBC bigging up Rishi too (on BBC News International).
Without some social consensus on the latter, the former are only of limited value.
If that’s the case why bother causing a lot of drama and an open goal for Tory attacks .
Not sure who in Labour thought it was a good idea to come up with this proposal . They’ve allowed the Tories to now add on other things to this policy and suggest its a sinister plot to rig a future EU referendum !
All this after recovering a large amount of Red Wall voters .
Clueless and shooting yourself in the foot . I say this as a Labour supporter .
My only real betting errors have been on DeSantis & Trump, but the Democrat side has been golden and overall the book is looking good.
Indeed we should be removing the franchise for Commonwealth citizens. It is a bit of colonial flotsam that has no place in a modern democracy.
The vast majority of the public don’t even know Commonwealth citizens can vote in GEs.
Funnily my family are Cypriot ! Lol
If Trump's legal problems force him out or see him fall short the odds are he would now endorse Pence over DeSantis which would get Pence the delegates and support from the MAGA crowd he needs to be nominee
And there are many countries that don't allow dual citizenship. If you have all the rights of permanent residency in the UK, it is difficult to give up the citizenship of the country you are from, where you may still have family that you might conceivably need to take care of at some point for example, just in order to secure a vote in a general election.
Even though what you're saying is probably true in the majority of cases, but when presented with a really clear counterexample you're making speculative assumptions that I think you simply won't do in other cases.
For example, a large sector of foreign nationals in the UK is those born in Poland. A lot of them have a fairly socially conservative outlook. Would adding them to UK elections benefit Labour? I'm am really not so sure it would.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NnxjZ-aFkjs
Turkey's lira falls to 19.67 to the US Dollar, a record low.
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1658074727242665984
She’s the new Maggie Thatcher.
I don’t know what I would do with such a big house. What’s the point of it? Running costs give you value for money, compared to how you use it?
If your a fine psephologist like me, you also compare the trend from the word clouds - where negative words to describe Starmer are becoming more plentiful and bigger with each one, with other measurements like approval, disapproval charts.
The Opinium approval from Saturday shows Starmer sharply going the wrong way for the last eight months.
Those manicured lawns don’t cut themelves, and that swimming pool doesn’t clean itself either. Easily £100k a year in general maintenance, before you try and upgrade anything.