Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Memo to the “Bring Back Boris” brigade – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited May 2023 in General
imageMemo to the “Bring Back Boris” brigade – politicalbetting.com

This weekend we have seen a new Conservative organization hold its first meeting in Bournemouth and it is widely believed that the aim of it is to get Boris back at number 10.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited May 2023
    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Before Boris resigned last summer yes the Tories were behind but still on a voteshare of around 30-35%. That had collapsed to a Tory voteshare average of just 20-25% before Truss resigned last autumn. Rishi to his credit has rebuilt that Tory voteshare to
    25-30% but while better than Liz' ratings it still trails what Boris was polling.

    We must not forget some white working class voters who usually vote Labour cast their first ever vote for a Tory at a general election in 2019 but only for Boris, they would not vote for any other Tory leader. Now they are either back voting Labour, voting RefUK or won't bother to vote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,596
    If Bozo is the answer, you're asking the wrong question.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,133
    Pretty meaningless. Truss was doing even worse by comparison and we all know she’s the Tories’ only hope now.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,797
    I wondered whether news that Boris has brought a house in Oxford could be a sign he's expecting to lose Uxbridge and South Ruislip either after being recalled following the Commons Privileges committee report or at Election 24 - And is eyeing up a nice, safe Conservative seat in rural Oxfordshire?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    Is voting rights going to be the big polarising issue of the next election? To takea consistent position agaisnt Starmer's plan to extend the franchise, the Tories would have to argue for a hard link between citizenship and voting rights in national elections, ending the anomaly of allowing Commonwealth citizens to vote.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,949
    FPT
    Farooq said:

    DougSeal said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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?
    EU law stated that citizen's of EU countries do not have the right to vote in the National elections of a country they are a resident but not a citizen of.

    Now we are outside the EU that law is one that can be removed. Think of it as a bit of EU law that Labour are happy to get rid of because of the extra votes it will provide Labour.

    The fact Labour can change the law is very much a result of Brexit.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited May 2023
    GIN1138 said:

    I wondered whether news that Boris has brought a house in Oxford could be a sign he's expecting to lose Uxbridge and South Ruislip either after being recalled following the Commons Privileges committee report or at Election 24 - And is eyeing up a nice, safe Conservative seat in rural Oxfordshire?

    Quite possibly. Uxbridge is in the top 100 Labour target seats and will almost certainly go Labour on current polls.

    However Henley is not ultra safe Tory now either. On May 4th indeed the LDs won a landslide victory in South Oxfordshire winning 21 seats while the Tories collapsed to just 1 councillor.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2023/england/councils/E07000179

    Even somewhere like Walsall or Dudley or Basildon or Dartford where the Tories held control of the council this month would be safer for Boris now than Henley (albeit less posh and glamorous)
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,531
    "Train fruit pickers and lorry drivers to cut migration, says Suella Braverman"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65593353
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126
    edited May 2023
    HYUFD said:

    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Before Boris resigned last summer yes the Tories were behind but still on a voteshare of around 30-35%. That had collapsed to a Tory voteshare average of just 20-25% before Truss resigned last autumn. Rishi to his credit has rebuilt that Tory voteshare to
    25-30% but while better than Liz' ratings it still trails what Boris was polling.

    We must not forget some white working class voters who usually vote Labour cast their first ever vote for a Tory at a general election in 2019 but only for Boris, they would not vote for any other Tory leader. Now they are either back voting Labour, voting RefUK or won't bother to vote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    The man is simply a joke. He is unfit for high office, or even any office. He appears to be an amoral Charlatan who has been caught out for his economy with the actualitaire time and again. Everyone whose path he crosses eventually seems to find him to be toxic. He is not your friend, he appears to have some despicable sociopathic tendencies and from his two letter Brexit stunt, was content to sell his nation down the river for personal aggrandisement.

    But other than that HY, I am sure we could both enjoy a pint or two with him, so long as we paid.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,147
    edited May 2023
    Any port in a storm, a straw to clutch at, light at the end of the tunnel, mirage on the horizon - however you want to describe it, desperate people do desperate things and Conservative MPs in relation to the next GE can be usefully divided into the following groups:

    The Desperate.
    The Resigned.
    The Deluded.


    Whether there is a move to bring back Boris Johnson depends solely on how large a group the Desperate become relative to the other groups. His merit or popularity has nothing to do with it.
  • Options
    RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,157
    HYUFD said:

    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Before Boris resigned last summer yes the Tories were behind but still on a voteshare of around 30-35%. That had collapsed to a Tory voteshare average of just 20-25% before Truss resigned last autumn. Rishi to his credit has rebuilt that Tory voteshare to
    25-30% but while better than Liz' ratings it still trails what Boris was polling.

    We must not forget some white working class voters who usually vote Labour cast their first ever vote for a Tory at a general election in 2019 but only for Boris, they would not vote for any other Tory leader. Now they are either back voting Labour, voting RefUK or won't bother to vote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    That was before Truss destroyed any reputation you had in respect to competence and the economy. The idea that the corrupt, buffoon would turn things round for you is for the birds.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited May 2023
    Boris could win more seats in the short term than Sunak, but his haphazard approach to governing would leave the country significantly weakened. Ultimately the failures would catch up with the Tories and cost them their future. We see that now.

    Boris is like an addictive drug that momentarily amplifies performance, but at the cost of your long term health.

    I wonder what the Tories will do. More drugs? Or cold turkey and recovery?
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,949

    Is voting rights going to be the big polarising issue of the next election? To takea consistent position agaisnt Starmer's plan to extend the franchise, the Tories would have to argue for a hard link between citizenship and voting rights in national elections, ending the anomaly of allowing Commonwealth citizens to vote.

    Which is why it's a vote winner for Labour because the current system is an historic accident that doesn't make any real sense.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,236
    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    eek said:

    Is voting rights going to be the big polarising issue of the next election? To takea consistent position agaisnt Starmer's plan to extend the franchise, the Tories would have to argue for a hard link between citizenship and voting rights in national elections, ending the anomaly of allowing Commonwealth citizens to vote.

    Which is why it's a vote winner for Labour because the current system is an historic accident that doesn't make any real sense.
    It might have the opposite effect because a lot of people won’t be aware of the inconsistency.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,236
    eek said:

    FPT

    Farooq said:

    DougSeal said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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?
    EU law stated that citizen's of EU countries do not have the right to vote in the National elections of a country they are a resident but not a citizen of.

    Now we are outside the EU that law is one that can be removed. Think of it as a bit of EU law that Labour are happy to get rid of because of the extra votes it will provide Labour.

    The fact Labour can change the law is very much a result of Brexit.
    Which EU law says that? As Irish and Maltese citizens could vote in UK national elections, and Luxemburg had a referendum on allowing all foreign residents a vote in national elections in 2015, I don't think such a law exists.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
    By whose consensus, though?
    Was there a consensus on giving the women the vote before the franchise was extended to them? What did the majority of men think?

    It would be a mistake to seek only the opinion of those who are able to vote, but I'm not sure whether that's what you mean or not.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,361
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Before Boris resigned last summer yes the Tories were behind but still on a voteshare of around 30-35%. That had collapsed to a Tory voteshare average of just 20-25% before Truss resigned last autumn. Rishi to his credit has rebuilt that Tory voteshare to
    25-30% but while better than Liz' ratings it still trails what Boris was polling.

    We must not forget some white working class voters who usually vote Labour cast their first ever vote for a Tory at a general election in 2019 but only for Boris, they would not vote for any other Tory leader. Now they are either back voting Labour, voting RefUK or won't bother to vote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    Implicit in your post is the trap you always fall into: looking at the past and imagining that those circumstances can once again come about. You do it all the time with elections. You refer to the next election being 1992, or 1997, or "2010 in reverse".

    Things are way more complicated than you suppose.

    For example, restoring Boris as leader wouldn't be going back to Boris, it would be going to Boris II. The fact that he resigned and then there were a couple of leaders, and then He's Back! would be new information compared to the last polling taken under Boris. It isn't like a football team, where you just shift the formation back to how it was before and you expect to play as you did before. That's because the "game" you're playing is with public opinion, and people remember.

    You can never, never go back to how it was before. Politics is non-commutative. The order of events is as important as the arrangement of the pieces.
    The return of Boris would need to be supported by whatever legislative programme designed to contrast with the dismal decline manager and put a little money back into peoples' pockets could still be managed in the time available. The time is limited and decreasing rapidly, but it might still be possible.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126
    edited May 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    "Train fruit pickers and lorry drivers to cut migration, says Suella Braverman"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65593353

    Fruit picker training is not really a thing. Motivation to get down on one's hands and knees to handpick strawberries, which is backbreaking work is a requirement. Has Suella ever worked as a soft fruit picker? Growing up in Herefordshire, I have and it is mind numbingly tedious as well as back breakingly hard. She's away with the fairies.

    And putting any old scally behind the wheel of a 40 tonne Scania isn't going to happen, although over time, training up domestic truck drivers (safely and properly) is desirable.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Before Boris resigned last summer yes the Tories were behind but still on a voteshare of around 30-35%. That had collapsed to a Tory voteshare average of just 20-25% before Truss resigned last autumn. Rishi to his credit has rebuilt that Tory voteshare to
    25-30% but while better than Liz' ratings it still trails what Boris was polling.

    We must not forget some white working class voters who usually vote Labour cast their first ever vote for a Tory at a general election in 2019 but only for Boris, they would not vote for any other Tory leader. Now they are either back voting Labour, voting RefUK or won't bother to vote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    Implicit in your post is the trap you always fall into: looking at the past and imagining that those circumstances can once again come about. You do it all the time with elections. You refer to the next election being 1992, or 1997, or "2010 in reverse".

    Things are way more complicated than you suppose.

    For example, restoring Boris as leader wouldn't be going back to Boris, it would be going to Boris II. The fact that he resigned and then there were a couple of leaders, and then He's Back! would be new information compared to the last polling taken under Boris. It isn't like a football team, where you just shift the formation back to how it was before and you expect to play as you did before. That's because the "game" you're playing is with public opinion, and people remember.

    You can never, never go back to how it was before. Politics is non-commutative. The order of events is as important as the arrangement of the pieces.
    The return of Boris would need to be supported by whatever legislative programme designed to contrast with the dismal decline manager and put a little money back into peoples' pockets could still be managed in the time available. The time is limited and decreasing rapidly, but it might still be possible.
    Well.you know how to cheer us all up!
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Before Boris resigned last summer yes the Tories were behind but still on a voteshare of around 30-35%. That had collapsed to a Tory voteshare average of just 20-25% before Truss resigned last autumn. Rishi to his credit has rebuilt that Tory voteshare to
    25-30% but while better than Liz' ratings it still trails what Boris was polling.

    We must not forget some white working class voters who usually vote Labour cast their first ever vote for a Tory at a general election in 2019 but only for Boris, they would not vote for any other Tory leader. Now they are either back voting Labour, voting RefUK or won't bother to vote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    Implicit in your post is the trap you always fall into: looking at the past and imagining that those circumstances can once again come about. You do it all the time with elections. You refer to the next election being 1992, or 1997, or "2010 in reverse".

    Things are way more complicated than you suppose.

    For example, restoring Boris as leader wouldn't be going back to Boris, it would be going to Boris II. The fact that he resigned and then there were a couple of leaders, and then He's Back! would be new information compared to the last polling taken under Boris. It isn't like a football team, where you just shift the formation back to how it was before and you expect to play as you did before. That's because the "game" you're playing is with public opinion, and people remember.

    You can never, never go back to how it was before. Politics is non-commutative. The order of events is as important as the arrangement of the pieces.
    The return of Boris would need to be supported by whatever legislative programme designed to contrast with the dismal decline manager and put a little money back into peoples pockets could still be managed in the time available. The time is limited and decreasing rapidly, but it might still be possible.
    It's possible, and there's even a chance it could work (although I really don't think it will).
    The only point I want to make is that going "back" isn't really going back. People have moved on to a new head space. Is that new head space more or less tolerant of Boris Johnson's antics? You can make a judgement one way or the other, but just thinking things would be the same is the same error as thinking you can uncrack an egg just because you can find all the pieces.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
    I agree, the citizenship pub quiz is quite bonkers and the fees excessive. 5 years residence with no criminal convictions should be enough, alongside a fairly nominal fee.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,361
    Foxy said:
    It has the same sugar/fat ratio as breast milk, that is apparently why we like it. I have ice cream nearly every night, go me.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554
    Boris or not (and I think not), I’m pretty sure tte next Tory leader will be a further shift to the right, assuming Labour win the election.

    Recent history since 1979 has first leaders post-defeat (albeit only 3 of them) being more on the wings than the predecessor: Foot after Callaghan, Hague after Major, Ed Miliband after Brown. In 2 of those there was then a further move to the wings after the first leader left: Miliband to Corbyn and Hague to IDS.

    If Rishi loses, the bulk of conservative support is going to land in one or other camp of:

    1. We weren’t radical enough with tax cuts and reducing the size of the state, or
    2. We weren’t radical enough with social conservatism and anti-wokeism

    Or both - and I expect the winner will need to promise both.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    HYUFD said:

    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Before Boris resigned last summer yes the Tories were behind but still on a voteshare of around 30-35%. That had collapsed to a Tory voteshare average of just 20-25% before Truss resigned last autumn. Rishi to his credit has rebuilt that Tory voteshare to
    25-30% but while better than Liz' ratings it still trails what Boris was polling.

    We must not forget some white working class voters who usually vote Labour cast their first ever vote for a Tory at a general election in 2019 but only for Boris, they would not vote for any other Tory leader. Now they are either back voting Labour, voting RefUK or won't bother to vote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    They may have supported him then, but like Ms Arcuri, would they support him again?
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,236
    Foxy said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
    I agree, the citizenship pub quiz is quite bonkers and the fees excessive. 5 years residence with no criminal convictions should be enough, alongside a fairly nominal fee.
    Cost me about 250 euros for German citizenship, by way of comparison. Apparently the French fee is 55 euros. Bargain!
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,123
    Andy_JS said:

    "Train fruit pickers and lorry drivers to cut migration, says Suella Braverman"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65593353

    We already are accelerating the latter
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    edited May 2023
    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
    I agree, the citizenship pub quiz is quite bonkers and the fees excessive. 5 years residence with no criminal convictions should be enough, alongside a fairly nominal fee.
    Cost me about 250 euros for German citizenship, by way of comparison. Apparently the French fee is 55 euros. Bargain!
    But you have to want to be French!
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
  • Options
    TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,705
    HYUFD said:

    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Speaking of King Across the Water, does David Miliband still rate as the most likely 'Next Labour Leader' in the betting markets, or have people finally woken up that he's never coming back?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,279
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Before Boris resigned last summer yes the Tories were behind but still on a voteshare of around 30-35%. That had collapsed to a Tory voteshare average of just 20-25% before Truss resigned last autumn. Rishi to his credit has rebuilt that Tory voteshare to
    25-30% but while better than Liz' ratings it still trails what Boris was polling.

    We must not forget some white working class voters who usually vote Labour cast their first ever vote for a Tory at a general election in 2019 but only for Boris, they would not vote for any other Tory leader. Now they are either back voting Labour, voting RefUK or won't bother to vote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    Implicit in your post is the trap you always fall into: looking at the past and imagining that those circumstances can once again come about. You do it all the time with elections. You refer to the next election being 1992, or 1997, or "2010 in reverse".

    Things are way more complicated than you suppose.

    For example, restoring Boris as leader wouldn't be going back to Boris, it would be going to Boris II. The fact that he resigned and then there were a couple of leaders, and then He's Back! would be new information compared to the last polling taken under Boris. It isn't like a football team, where you just shift the formation back to how it was before and you expect to play as you did before. That's because the "game" you're playing is with public opinion, and people remember.

    You can never, never go back to how it was before. Politics is non-commutative. The order of events is as important as the arrangement of the pieces.
    I think @HYUFD's point is that there will be a non-trivial proportion of 2019 Cons voters who do indeed say "oh look it's Boris back; I like him".
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,183
    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    A hereditary
    An hour
    A helicopter
    An honour
    A hammer

    An understanding
    A unicorn
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    HYUFD said:

    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Before Boris resigned last summer yes the Tories were behind but still on a voteshare of around 30-35%. That had collapsed to a Tory voteshare average of just 20-25% before Truss resigned last autumn. Rishi to his credit has rebuilt that Tory voteshare to
    25-30% but while better than Liz' ratings it still trails what Boris was polling.

    We must not forget some white working class voters who usually vote Labour cast their first ever vote for a Tory at a general election in 2019 but only for Boris, they would not vote for any other Tory leader. Now they are either back voting Labour, voting RefUK or won't bother to vote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    But Boris-now wouldn’t mean a return to the same ratings as when he resigned. Both he and the party are less attractive propositions. For example, the Trussageddon still happened: returning Boris can’t wipe that out. Partygate looks worse. Etc.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    TOPPING said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Before Boris resigned last summer yes the Tories were behind but still on a voteshare of around 30-35%. That had collapsed to a Tory voteshare average of just 20-25% before Truss resigned last autumn. Rishi to his credit has rebuilt that Tory voteshare to
    25-30% but while better than Liz' ratings it still trails what Boris was polling.

    We must not forget some white working class voters who usually vote Labour cast their first ever vote for a Tory at a general election in 2019 but only for Boris, they would not vote for any other Tory leader. Now they are either back voting Labour, voting RefUK or won't bother to vote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    Implicit in your post is the trap you always fall into: looking at the past and imagining that those circumstances can once again come about. You do it all the time with elections. You refer to the next election being 1992, or 1997, or "2010 in reverse".

    Things are way more complicated than you suppose.

    For example, restoring Boris as leader wouldn't be going back to Boris, it would be going to Boris II. The fact that he resigned and then there were a couple of leaders, and then He's Back! would be new information compared to the last polling taken under Boris. It isn't like a football team, where you just shift the formation back to how it was before and you expect to play as you did before. That's because the "game" you're playing is with public opinion, and people remember.

    You can never, never go back to how it was before. Politics is non-commutative. The order of events is as important as the arrangement of the pieces.
    I think @HYUFD's point is that there will be a non-trivial proportion of 2019 Cons voters who do indeed say "oh look it's Boris back; I like him".
    I agree. But there will be a non-trivial proportion of 2019 Cons who will say "ehhh, no, we thought we were rid of you."
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586

    Is voting rights going to be the big polarising issue of the next election? To takea consistent position agaisnt Starmer's plan to extend the franchise, the Tories would have to argue for a hard link between citizenship and voting rights in national elections, ending the anomaly of allowing Commonwealth citizens to vote.

    QTWTAIN

    Elections are won on the public’s main concerns, which remain the economy, cost of living, health &c.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,936
    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
    I agree, the citizenship pub quiz is quite bonkers and the fees excessive. 5 years residence with no criminal convictions should be enough, alongside a fairly nominal fee.
    Cost me about 250 euros for German citizenship, by way of comparison. Apparently the French fee is 55 euros. Bargain!
    Yep. £1000 for citizenship is a scam. Ideally it should be at cost. We should not be making money out of people who want to become a citizen and be part of the future of our country.
  • Options
    sladeslade Posts: 1,930
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I wondered whether news that Boris has brought a house in Oxford could be a sign he's expecting to lose Uxbridge and South Ruislip either after being recalled following the Commons Privileges committee report or at Election 24 - And is eyeing up a nice, safe Conservative seat in rural Oxfordshire?

    Quite possibly. Uxbridge is in the top 100 Labour target seats and will almost certainly go Labour on current polls.

    However Henley is not ultra safe Tory now either. On May 4th indeed the LDs won a landslide victory in South Oxfordshire winning 21 seats while the Tories collapsed to just 1 councillor.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2023/england/councils/E07000179

    Even somewhere like Walsall or Dudley or Basildon or Dartford where the Tories held control of the council this month would be safer for Boris now than Henley (albeit less posh and glamorous)
    We have had a situation for some time that the Tories have no councillors in Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, and Hull. But this is now happening in the rural south. They have no councillors in Lewes and Vale of White Horse ( indeed in the latter there are no Labour councillors either - a unique case in England).
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126
    TimS said:

    Boris or not (and I think not), I’m pretty sure tte next Tory leader will be a further shift to the right, assuming Labour win the election.

    Recent history since 1979 has first leaders post-defeat (albeit only 3 of them) being more on the wings than the predecessor: Foot after Callaghan, Hague after Major, Ed Miliband after Brown. In 2 of those there was then a further move to the wings after the first leader left: Miliband to Corbyn and Hague to IDS.

    If Rishi loses, the bulk of conservative support is going to land in one or other camp of:

    1. We weren’t radical enough with tax cuts and reducing the size of the state, or
    2. We weren’t radical enough with social conservatism and anti-wokeism

    Or both - and I expect the winner will need to promise both.

    That sounds like a job for Sue Ellen or, dah, dah, dah, Mogg.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,007
    One less Brexiteer for the Beeb to get on QT or Newsnight. I couldn't even be arsed with a sardonic 'vaguely credible'.




  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,936
    Foxy said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
    I agree, the citizenship pub quiz is quite bonkers and the fees excessive. 5 years residence with no criminal convictions should be enough, alongside a fairly nominal fee.
    The fees are excessive but the tests are a very good idea.

    Norway has extensive language and culture tests for prospective citizens. Indeed for anyone who wants permanent residence. When I was there it was 200 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons which I believe is now increased to 300 hours. This seems to me to be a very sensible thing to avoid isolation and ghettoisation.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,477
    One word memo.
    Don't.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,183
    Farooq said:

    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    A hereditary
    An hour
    A helicopter
    An honour
    A hammer

    An understanding
    A unicorn
    Yes, I grasp the rule. It's just that saying "A hereditary" is as very awkward with either pronunciation of "A" , and so most people say "An ereditary".
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,137

    HYUFD said:

    The pro Boris supporters do have some evidence to back their support for their King across the Water still.

    Before Boris resigned last summer yes the Tories were behind but still on a voteshare of around 30-35%. That had collapsed to a Tory voteshare average of just 20-25% before Truss resigned last autumn. Rishi to his credit has rebuilt that Tory voteshare to
    25-30% but while better than Liz' ratings it still trails what Boris was polling.

    We must not forget some white working class voters who usually vote Labour cast their first ever vote for a Tory at a general election in 2019 but only for Boris, they would not vote for any other Tory leader. Now they are either back voting Labour, voting RefUK or won't bother to vote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    The man is simply a joke. He is unfit for high office, or even any office. He appears to be an amoral Charlatan who has been caught out for his economy with the actualitaire time and again. Everyone whose path he crosses eventually seems to find him to be toxic. He is not your friend, he appears to have some despicable sociopathic tendencies and from his two letter Brexit stunt, was content to sell his nation down the river for personal aggrandisement.

    But other than that HY, I am sure we could both enjoy a pint or two with him, so long as we paid.
    The only semi-informal event (a small dinner party) which involved Johnson (and other somewhat senior Tories of the time: GOs and Gove I believe) and someone I know, Johnson was rude, ignored everyone else in the room, chowed down mightily, and buggered off before the coffee.

    On that showing, I very much doubt I would enjoy a beer with him.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,936

    If Bozo is the answer, you're asking the wrong question.

    If Bozo is the answer you are probably on the wrong planet.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,007
    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    'An historic' still feels more right for me.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
    The Conservative Party has abandoned concepts like consensus when it comes to our voting laws.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,183

    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    'An historic' still feels more right for me.
    Yes, that one too. So long as you aren't pronouncing the h, of course.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    Johnson won in 2019, not just because of Corbyn, but because he promised an end to the Brexit impasse. And while that involved quite a lot of dissimulation*, he did deliver that.

    * Or lying, as some call it
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    edited May 2023

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
    I agree, the citizenship pub quiz is quite bonkers and the fees excessive. 5 years residence with no criminal convictions should be enough, alongside a fairly nominal fee.
    Cost me about 250 euros for German citizenship, by way of comparison. Apparently the French fee is 55 euros. Bargain!
    Yep. £1000 for citizenship is a scam. Ideally it should be at cost. We should not be making money out of people who want to become a citizen and be part of the future of our country.
    It should be cost neutral, but presumably involves outsourced police record checks and the language / culture test admin.

    It should be encouraged for people who see themselves as permanent residents though, it gives a level of basic security against deportation, and the right to have a say in how their new home country is governed.

    I know people who have taken US citizenship from a few different countries, and a big deal is made of it, including the right to vote. Don’t mention the international taxes if you leave the US though!
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    Andy_JS said:

    "Train fruit pickers and lorry drivers to cut migration, says Suella Braverman"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65593353

    Are there a lot of people who pick fruit from trains?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,477
    Scott_xP said:

    @jonsopel

    Don’t want to go over the top, but this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Someone who was in the cabinet when legislation on voter ID was agreed and went through parliament acknowledges it WAS an attempt to gerrymander the elections

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1658076536350601216

    Said at the conference of loons.
    Which appears to be taking some of its themes from the US right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/low-birthrate-is-uk-top-priority-tory-mp-tells-rightwing-conference-miriam-cates
    ...The UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, a Conservative MP has argued at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.

    Addressing the National Conservatism gathering, run by a US-based thinktank, Miriam Cates said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction..
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    Foxy said:
    It has the same sugar/fat ratio as breast milk, that is apparently why we like it. I have ice cream nearly every night, go me.
    Technically, it's the same carbohydrates/fat ratio. Breast milk contains relatively little in the way of straight sugar: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331577/#:~:text=Fructose, glucose, and lactose were,associated with infant body composition.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    Farooq said:

    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    A hereditary
    An hour
    A helicopter
    An honour
    A hammer

    An understanding
    A unicorn
    We submitted a paper recently that referred to… well, the draft said “a mpox case”, but I changed it to “an mpox case”. Agree?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Train fruit pickers and lorry drivers to cut migration, says Suella Braverman"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65593353

    Are there a lot of people who pick fruit from trains?
    The fruit picking should be automated - already heading that way.

    A friend in the Cotswolds reports a trial of a robotic litter picker is going on. To deal with people throwing rubbish from cars. He did like my suggestion of robots that would implacably hunt down the rubbish throwers…
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,477
    UK ministers urged to intervene if Australian bank takes 100% of gas business
    Macquarie has option for all of National Grid gas transmission and metering despite tainted history of owning utilities
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/14/uk-ministers-urged-to-intervene-if-australian-bank-takes-100-of-gas-business
    Ministers have been urged to intervene if the Australian banking powerhouse Macquarie pushes the button on a mooted £3bn deal to take full control of a vital part of the UK’s gas grid.

    A consortium made up of Macquarie Asset Management and British Columbia Investment Management Corporation completed the acquisition of 60% of the equity in National Grid’s gas transmission and meter business in January, in a deal which valued the business at £7.5bn...

  • Options
    NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 703
    carnforth said:

    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    'An historic' still feels more right for me.
    Yes, that one too. So long as you aren't pronouncing the h, of course.
    I probably use ‘an’ before some of these words in casual speech without realising it, as I might drop the ‘h’. However, in writing I always use ‘a’ if the ‘h’ is supposed to be aspirated in formal use. I would write ‘a hotel’ and ‘a historic’ but I think there is a traditionalist argument that those words should have a silent ‘h’ due to their French origins?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,531
    Why did the commentariat get the Turkish election wrong?
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @jonsopel

    Don’t want to go over the top, but this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Someone who was in the cabinet when legislation on voter ID was agreed and went through parliament acknowledges it WAS an attempt to gerrymander the elections

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1658076536350601216

    Said at the conference of loons.
    Which appears to be taking some of its themes from the US right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/low-birthrate-is-uk-top-priority-tory-mp-tells-rightwing-conference-miriam-cates
    ...The UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, a Conservative MP has argued at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.

    Addressing the National Conservatism gathering, run by a US-based thinktank, Miriam Cates said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction..
    Weirdly, the birth rate in the USSR fell precipitously at the time that actual Marxism ended there.

    I do wonder what this "cultural Marxism" is. Often people use that as code for "the Jews", but in this case I suspect not since Jews tend to have similar numbers of children as Christians.

    Perhaps "cultural Marxism" is, in this case, a cipher for insecure accommodation and zero-hours contracts?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @jonsopel

    Don’t want to go over the top, but this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Someone who was in the cabinet when legislation on voter ID was agreed and went through parliament acknowledges it WAS an attempt to gerrymander the elections

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1658076536350601216

    Said at the conference of loons.
    Which appears to be taking some of its themes from the US right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/low-birthrate-is-uk-top-priority-tory-mp-tells-rightwing-conference-miriam-cates
    ...The UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, a Conservative MP has argued at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.

    Addressing the National Conservatism gathering, run by a US-based thinktank, Miriam Cates said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction..
    How does she explain the fact that birth rates are low in all developed countries, whether you have a left wing or right wing government?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:
    It has the same sugar/fat ratio as breast milk, that is apparently why we like it. I have ice cream nearly every night, go me.
    Technically, it's the same carbohydrates/fat ratio. Breast milk contains relatively little in the way of straight sugar: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331577/#:~:text=Fructose, glucose, and lactose were,associated with infant body composition.
    While these comparisons are interesting, I would note that they tend to be served at rather different temperatures, which must have some impact on their sensory properties.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,014
    Farooq said:

    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    A hereditary
    An hour
    A helicopter
    An honour
    A hammer

    An understanding
    A unicorn
    English is wonderfully idiosyncratic 😂
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    Andy_JS said:

    Why did the commentariat get the Turkish election wrong?

    The same reason they always get elections wrong - they’re based in big cities, and miss the fact that most of the electorate don’t live in big cities.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,409
    Andy_JS said:

    "Train fruit pickers and lorry drivers to cut migration, says Suella Braverman"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65593353

    But if the fruit pickers and lorry drivers are being sent to retrain as immigtation staff, who will pick the fruit and drive the lorries?
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    A hereditary
    An hour
    A helicopter
    An honour
    A hammer

    An understanding
    A unicorn
    We submitted a paper recently that referred to… well, the draft said “a mpox case”, but I changed it to “an mpox case”. Agree?
    Assuming that you pronounce "mpox" as "emm-poks", yes. I'd have made the same edit. It's all about the sound if you read it aloud. Personally I pronounce the "h" in hereditary too.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    Andy_JS said:

    Why did the commentariat get the Turkish election wrong?

    Because it’s difficult to predict when Erdogan cheats?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    Sandpit said:

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
    I agree, the citizenship pub quiz is quite bonkers and the fees excessive. 5 years residence with no criminal convictions should be enough, alongside a fairly nominal fee.
    Cost me about 250 euros for German citizenship, by way of comparison. Apparently the French fee is 55 euros. Bargain!
    Yep. £1000 for citizenship is a scam. Ideally it should be at cost. We should not be making money out of people who want to become a citizen and be part of the future of our country.
    It should be cost neutral, but presumably involves outsourced police record checks and the language / culture test admin.

    It should be encouraged for people who see themselves as permanent residents though, it gives a level of basic security against deportation, and the right to have a say in how their new home country is governed.

    I know people who have taken US citizenship from a few different countries, and a big deal is made of it, including the right to vote. Don’t mention the international taxes if you leave the US though!
    That comes with the Green Card, not citizenship.

    If you give up your Green Card, they do a valuation of all your assets compared to when you got your card and charge you capital gains on the difference.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,477
    An interesting extension of the free speech argument.

    Abbott knocks Dominion over Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox News
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4003679-abbott-knocks-dominion-over-tucker-carlsons-departure-from-fox-news/
    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) bashed Dominion Voting Systems over the departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, following a report that the popular conservative primetime host was fired from the network as part of its settlement with the voting software company.
    Carlson was told by a member of the network’s board of directors that he was taken off the air as part of the Fox News settlement with Dominion, according to Axios, which cited unidentified sources briefed on the conversations. Abbott said if the reporting was true, then he is “happy that Dominion does not operate in Texas.”
    “We may disagree with other’s positions, but we should never try to improperly silence views contrary to our own,” Abbott said on Twitter on Saturday. “If Dominion wants to do business with Texas in the future, they should first answer questions about what role, if any, they played in silencing a prominent conservative journalist.”
    A Fox News spokesperson in a statement to Axios said that the idea that Carlson was let go of as part of the settlement was “categorically false.” An attorney for Dominion also told the news outlet that it did not insist on Carlson being fired...

  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,409
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @jonsopel

    Don’t want to go over the top, but this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Someone who was in the cabinet when legislation on voter ID was agreed and went through parliament acknowledges it WAS an attempt to gerrymander the elections

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1658076536350601216

    Said at the conference of loons.
    Which appears to be taking some of its themes from the US right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/low-birthrate-is-uk-top-priority-tory-mp-tells-rightwing-conference-miriam-cates
    ...The UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, a Conservative MP has argued at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.

    Addressing the National Conservatism gathering, run by a US-based thinktank, Miriam Cates said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction..
    They've seen US Republicans and thought "that looks fun". Including the gerrymandering.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,078
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @jonsopel

    Don’t want to go over the top, but this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Someone who was in the cabinet when legislation on voter ID was agreed and went through parliament acknowledges it WAS an attempt to gerrymander the elections

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1658076536350601216

    Said at the conference of loons.
    Which appears to be taking some of its themes from the US right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/low-birthrate-is-uk-top-priority-tory-mp-tells-rightwing-conference-miriam-cates
    ...The UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, a Conservative MP has argued at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.

    Addressing the National Conservatism gathering, run by a US-based thinktank, Miriam Cates said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction..
    Can’t afford to have kids because we’re taxed up to the eyeballs and have to shell out 50% of income on housing.

    “Cultural marxism”
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    A hereditary
    An hour
    A helicopter
    An honour
    A hammer

    An understanding
    A unicorn
    We submitted a paper recently that referred to… well, the draft said “a mpox case”, but I changed it to “an mpox case”. Agree?
    Assuming that you pronounce "mpox" as "emm-poks", yes. I'd have made the same edit. It's all about the sound if you read it aloud. Personally I pronounce the "h" in hereditary too.
    Yes, agreed.

    My earlier proposal to pronounce “mpox” to rhyme with Hanson’s “MMMBop” did not go down well.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
    I agree, the citizenship pub quiz is quite bonkers and the fees excessive. 5 years residence with no criminal convictions should be enough, alongside a fairly nominal fee.
    Cost me about 250 euros for German citizenship, by way of comparison. Apparently the French fee is 55 euros. Bargain!
    Yep. £1000 for citizenship is a scam. Ideally it should be at cost. We should not be making money out of people who want to become a citizen and be part of the future of our country.
    It should be cost neutral, but presumably involves outsourced police record checks and the language / culture test admin.

    It should be encouraged for people who see themselves as permanent residents though, it gives a level of basic security against deportation, and the right to have a say in how their new home country is governed.

    I know people who have taken US citizenship from a few different countries, and a big deal is made of it, including the right to vote. Don’t mention the international taxes if you leave the US though!
    That comes with the Green Card, not citizenship.

    If you give up your Green Card, they do a valuation of all your assets compared to when you got your card and charge you capital gains on the difference.
    International assets?

    I know people who have relinquished US citizenship because of the overseas taxes, and companies out here (with no income tax) will happily pay Americans half by bank and half in cash.
  • Options
    northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,516
    Andy_JS said:

    "Train fruit pickers and lorry drivers to cut migration, says Suella Braverman"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65593353

    'Let's leave the EU so we can have you sullen plebs doing jobs you resent (BTW we'll raise the retirement age as soon as we can get away with it too so prepare for backbreaking labour until you're 70), instead of having all those awful young, motivated people from the EU taking the jobs you don't want to do anyway. It'll mean more expensive food but, y'know, Take Back Control. P.S. we wont cut the VAT on fuel bills either.'
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    A hereditary
    An hour
    A helicopter
    An honour
    A hammer

    An understanding
    A unicorn
    We submitted a paper recently that referred to… well, the draft said “a mpox case”, but I changed it to “an mpox case”. Agree?
    Assuming that you pronounce "mpox" as "emm-poks", yes. I'd have made the same edit. It's all about the sound if you read it aloud. Personally I pronounce the "h" in hereditary too.
    Yes, agreed.

    My earlier proposal to pronounce “mpox” to rhyme with Hanson’s “MMMBop” did not go down well.
    Well, that's finally pushed all the Eurovision songs out of my head. Now I'll be humming Hanson all day.

    Mods, can we ban @bondegezou please?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    Nigelb said:

    An interesting extension of the free speech argument.

    Abbott knocks Dominion over Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox News
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4003679-abbott-knocks-dominion-over-tucker-carlsons-departure-from-fox-news/
    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) bashed Dominion Voting Systems over the departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, following a report that the popular conservative primetime host was fired from the network as part of its settlement with the voting software company.
    Carlson was told by a member of the network’s board of directors that he was taken off the air as part of the Fox News settlement with Dominion, according to Axios, which cited unidentified sources briefed on the conversations. Abbott said if the reporting was true, then he is “happy that Dominion does not operate in Texas.”
    “We may disagree with other’s positions, but we should never try to improperly silence views contrary to our own,” Abbott said on Twitter on Saturday. “If Dominion wants to do business with Texas in the future, they should first answer questions about what role, if any, they played in silencing a prominent conservative journalist.”
    A Fox News spokesperson in a statement to Axios said that the idea that Carlson was let go of as part of the settlement was “categorically false.” An attorney for Dominion also told the news outlet that it did not insist on Carlson being fired...

    For this to be an interesting extension of the free speech argument, wouldn’t Abbott have to have some sort of coherent position? He’s just pwning the libs here. There’s zero philosophy or consistency.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @jonsopel

    Don’t want to go over the top, but this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Someone who was in the cabinet when legislation on voter ID was agreed and went through parliament acknowledges it WAS an attempt to gerrymander the elections

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1658076536350601216

    Said at the conference of loons.
    Which appears to be taking some of its themes from the US right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/low-birthrate-is-uk-top-priority-tory-mp-tells-rightwing-conference-miriam-cates
    ...The UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, a Conservative MP has argued at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.

    Addressing the National Conservatism gathering, run by a US-based thinktank, Miriam Cates said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction..
    How does she explain the fact that birth rates are low in all developed countries, whether you have a left wing or right wing government?
    That's obvious. There aren't any right wing governments in the modern west.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,014
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:
    It has the same sugar/fat ratio as breast milk, that is apparently why we like it. I have ice cream nearly every night, go me.
    Technically, it's the same carbohydrates/fat ratio. Breast milk contains relatively little in the way of straight sugar: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331577/#:~:text=Fructose, glucose, and lactose were,associated with infant body composition.
    You’re nlt suggesting this is a pointless scam designed to part fools from their money?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Licktators
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    A hereditary
    An hour
    A helicopter
    An honour
    A hammer

    An understanding
    A unicorn
    We submitted a paper recently that referred to… well, the draft said “a mpox case”, but I changed it to “an mpox case”. Agree?
    Assuming that you pronounce "mpox" as "emm-poks", yes. I'd have made the same edit. It's all about the sound if you read it aloud. Personally I pronounce the "h" in hereditary too.
    Yes, agreed.

    My earlier proposal to pronounce “mpox” to rhyme with Hanson’s “MMMBop” did not go down well.
    Well, that's finally pushed all the Eurovision songs out of my head. Now I'll be humming Hanson all day.

    Mods, can we ban @bondegezou please?
    In my defence, I very much enjoy Radiohead, particularly Kid A.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    Foxy said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    kamski said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

    Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

    So no reciprocation needed after all?
    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.
    Especially with the uncertainty around Brexit. If someone takes up a UK passport and has to relinquish their old one, are they going to need a visa to visit family, etc?
    Plenty of reasons why someone might make this their permanent home but want for pragmatic reasons to not have the expense and hassle of changing their citizenship permanently. To exclude those people who are living stable, ordinary British lives just because of their passport is a policy borne of paranoia.
    I think changing the franchise should be done by consensus if at all possible. And I'm not convinced that extending voting at the national level to non-citizens is a good idea, and it's probably a vote-loser.

    But I don't think it's accurate to say becoming a British citizen is easy for everyone who is a long-term resident. It costs 1330 GPP to apply! Shouldn't the UK be encouraging long-term residents to become citizens, instead of applying punitive application fees?
    I agree, the citizenship pub quiz is quite bonkers and the fees excessive. 5 years residence with no criminal convictions should be enough, alongside a fairly nominal fee.
    The fees are excessive but the tests are a very good idea.

    Norway has extensive language and culture tests for prospective citizens. Indeed for anyone who wants permanent residence. When I was there it was 200 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons which I believe is now increased to 300 hours. This seems to me to be a very sensible thing to avoid isolation and ghettoisation.
    The test, though, contains a lot that is wank: It's all our duty to look after the environment, for example.

    And a lot that is absurdly specific (like the questions on dog ownership).

    Or which (like the Boer Wars) is not likely to help you assimilate.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    Nigelb said:

    An interesting extension of the free speech argument.

    Abbott knocks Dominion over Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox News
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4003679-abbott-knocks-dominion-over-tucker-carlsons-departure-from-fox-news/
    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) bashed Dominion Voting Systems over the departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, following a report that the popular conservative primetime host was fired from the network as part of its settlement with the voting software company.
    Carlson was told by a member of the network’s board of directors that he was taken off the air as part of the Fox News settlement with Dominion, according to Axios, which cited unidentified sources briefed on the conversations. Abbott said if the reporting was true, then he is “happy that Dominion does not operate in Texas.”
    “We may disagree with other’s positions, but we should never try to improperly silence views contrary to our own,” Abbott said on Twitter on Saturday. “If Dominion wants to do business with Texas in the future, they should first answer questions about what role, if any, they played in silencing a prominent conservative journalist.”
    A Fox News spokesperson in a statement to Axios said that the idea that Carlson was let go of as part of the settlement was “categorically false.” An attorney for Dominion also told the news outlet that it did not insist on Carlson being fired...

    Tucker intends to subpoena every internal email and memo from both sides, with regard to the Fox/Dominion case, he’s convinced there was a quid pro quo to fire him as part of the settlement.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @jonsopel

    Don’t want to go over the top, but this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Someone who was in the cabinet when legislation on voter ID was agreed and went through parliament acknowledges it WAS an attempt to gerrymander the elections

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1658076536350601216

    Said at the conference of loons.
    Which appears to be taking some of its themes from the US right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/low-birthrate-is-uk-top-priority-tory-mp-tells-rightwing-conference-miriam-cates
    ...The UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, a Conservative MP has argued at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.

    Addressing the National Conservatism gathering, run by a US-based thinktank, Miriam Cates said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction..
    How does she explain the fact that birth rates are low in all developed countries, whether you have a left wing or right wing government?
    That's obvious. There aren't any right wing governments in the modern west.
    Or the modern East? Or Russia?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:
    It has the same sugar/fat ratio as breast milk, that is apparently why we like it. I have ice cream nearly every night, go me.
    Technically, it's the same carbohydrates/fat ratio. Breast milk contains relatively little in the way of straight sugar: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331577/#:~:text=Fructose, glucose, and lactose were,associated with infant body composition.
    You’re nlt suggesting this is a pointless scam designed to part fools from their money?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Licktators
    Reading that Wikipedia page, it does appear to be a pointless scam designed to part fools from their money.

    And now I have that in my head for the day.

    Thank you so much.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,875

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    carnforth said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ukranian President Zelensky in UK this lunchtime. Turned up at Chequers in an helicopter to meet the PM.

    I've always had you down as something of a barbarian; using "an" in front of "helicopter" confirms it.
    Maybe he doesn't pronounce the h :smile:

    I think "an hereditary" is about the only defensible one these days. Most people drop the h there.
    A hereditary
    An hour
    A helicopter
    An honour
    A hammer

    An understanding
    A unicorn
    We submitted a paper recently that referred to… well, the draft said “a mpox case”, but I changed it to “an mpox case”. Agree?
    Assuming that you pronounce "mpox" as "emm-poks", yes. I'd have made the same edit. It's all about the sound if you read it aloud. Personally I pronounce the "h" in hereditary too.
    Yes, agreed.

    My earlier proposal to pronounce “mpox” to rhyme with Hanson’s “MMMBop” did not go down well.
    Well, that's finally pushed all the Eurovision songs out of my head. Now I'll be humming Hanson all day.

    Mods, can we ban @bondegezou please?
    In my defence, I very much enjoy Radiohead, particularly Kid A.
    Definite ban then...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    An interesting extension of the free speech argument.

    Abbott knocks Dominion over Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox News
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4003679-abbott-knocks-dominion-over-tucker-carlsons-departure-from-fox-news/
    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) bashed Dominion Voting Systems over the departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, following a report that the popular conservative primetime host was fired from the network as part of its settlement with the voting software company.
    Carlson was told by a member of the network’s board of directors that he was taken off the air as part of the Fox News settlement with Dominion, according to Axios, which cited unidentified sources briefed on the conversations. Abbott said if the reporting was true, then he is “happy that Dominion does not operate in Texas.”
    “We may disagree with other’s positions, but we should never try to improperly silence views contrary to our own,” Abbott said on Twitter on Saturday. “If Dominion wants to do business with Texas in the future, they should first answer questions about what role, if any, they played in silencing a prominent conservative journalist.”
    A Fox News spokesperson in a statement to Axios said that the idea that Carlson was let go of as part of the settlement was “categorically false.” An attorney for Dominion also told the news outlet that it did not insist on Carlson being fired...

    Tucker intends to subpoena every internal email and memo from both sides, with regard to the Fox/Dominion case, he’s convinced there was a quid pro quo to fire him as part of the settlement.
    Dominion (and specifically their PE owners) only care about making money. All they really want is an agreement from Fox to never question their voting machines integrity.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,091
    Farooq said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @jonsopel

    Don’t want to go over the top, but this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Someone who was in the cabinet when legislation on voter ID was agreed and went through parliament acknowledges it WAS an attempt to gerrymander the elections

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1658076536350601216

    Said at the conference of loons.
    Which appears to be taking some of its themes from the US right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/low-birthrate-is-uk-top-priority-tory-mp-tells-rightwing-conference-miriam-cates
    ...The UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, a Conservative MP has argued at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.

    Addressing the National Conservatism gathering, run by a US-based thinktank, Miriam Cates said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction..
    Weirdly, the birth rate in the USSR fell precipitously at the time that actual Marxism ended there.

    I do wonder what this "cultural Marxism" is. Often people use that as code for "the Jews", but in this case I suspect not since Jews tend to have similar numbers of children as Christians.

    Perhaps "cultural Marxism" is, in this case, a cipher for insecure accommodation and zero-hours contracts?
    That's called capitalism.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,007
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:
    It has the same sugar/fat ratio as breast milk, that is apparently why we like it. I have ice cream nearly every night, go me.
    Technically, it's the same carbohydrates/fat ratio. Breast milk contains relatively little in the way of straight sugar: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331577/#:~:text=Fructose, glucose, and lactose were,associated with infant body composition.
    Look, Luckyguy is allowed to justify being a tit man any way he needs to.
    Can breast milk be turned into ice cream?
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,014
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    An interesting extension of the free speech argument.

    Abbott knocks Dominion over Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox News
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4003679-abbott-knocks-dominion-over-tucker-carlsons-departure-from-fox-news/
    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) bashed Dominion Voting Systems over the departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, following a report that the popular conservative primetime host was fired from the network as part of its settlement with the voting software company.
    Carlson was told by a member of the network’s board of directors that he was taken off the air as part of the Fox News settlement with Dominion, according to Axios, which cited unidentified sources briefed on the conversations. Abbott said if the reporting was true, then he is “happy that Dominion does not operate in Texas.”
    “We may disagree with other’s positions, but we should never try to improperly silence views contrary to our own,” Abbott said on Twitter on Saturday. “If Dominion wants to do business with Texas in the future, they should first answer questions about what role, if any, they played in silencing a prominent conservative journalist.”
    A Fox News spokesperson in a statement to Axios said that the idea that Carlson was let go of as part of the settlement was “categorically false.” An attorney for Dominion also told the news outlet that it did not insist on Carlson being fired...

    Tucker intends to subpoena every internal email and memo from both sides, with regard to the Fox/Dominion case, he’s convinced there was a quid pro quo to fire him as part of the settlement.
    Dominion (and specifically their PE owners) only care about making money. All they really want is an agreement from Fox to never question their voting machines integrity.
    You sure that $700m wasn’t something they quite liked as well?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    An interesting extension of the free speech argument.

    Abbott knocks Dominion over Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox News
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4003679-abbott-knocks-dominion-over-tucker-carlsons-departure-from-fox-news/
    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) bashed Dominion Voting Systems over the departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, following a report that the popular conservative primetime host was fired from the network as part of its settlement with the voting software company.
    Carlson was told by a member of the network’s board of directors that he was taken off the air as part of the Fox News settlement with Dominion, according to Axios, which cited unidentified sources briefed on the conversations. Abbott said if the reporting was true, then he is “happy that Dominion does not operate in Texas.”
    “We may disagree with other’s positions, but we should never try to improperly silence views contrary to our own,” Abbott said on Twitter on Saturday. “If Dominion wants to do business with Texas in the future, they should first answer questions about what role, if any, they played in silencing a prominent conservative journalist.”
    A Fox News spokesperson in a statement to Axios said that the idea that Carlson was let go of as part of the settlement was “categorically false.” An attorney for Dominion also told the news outlet that it did not insist on Carlson being fired...

    Tucker intends to subpoena every internal email and memo from both sides, with regard to the Fox/Dominion case, he’s convinced there was a quid pro quo to fire him as part of the settlement.
    Dominion (and specifically their PE owners) only care about making money. All they really want is an agreement from Fox to never question their voting machines integrity.
    I wondered if their brand is (entirely unjustly) so permanently tainted by events that all they really want now is (quite deservedly) money.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,326
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I wondered whether news that Boris has brought a house in Oxford could be a sign he's expecting to lose Uxbridge and South Ruislip either after being recalled following the Commons Privileges committee report or at Election 24 - And is eyeing up a nice, safe Conservative seat in rural Oxfordshire?

    Quite possibly. Uxbridge is in the top 100 Labour target seats and will almost certainly go Labour on current polls.

    However Henley is not ultra safe Tory now either, on May 4th. Indeed the LDs won a landslide victory in South Oxfordshire on 4th May winning 21 seats while the Tories collapsed to just 1 councillor.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2023/england/councils/E07000179

    Even somewhere like Walsall or Dudley or Basildon or Dartford where the Tories held control of the council this month would be safer for Boris now than Henley (albeit less posh and glamorous)
    A friend lives in Brightwell (the Oxfordshire village where Boris is heading) and says there are indeed extensive preparations being made, not least a police car that drives up and down all day - inevitable, I suppose. The culture of the area is very LibDem - prosperous, nice, well-educated and socially liberal. Not naturally populist, as HYUFD says - don't know if Henley is different,
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    An interesting extension of the free speech argument.

    Abbott knocks Dominion over Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox News
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4003679-abbott-knocks-dominion-over-tucker-carlsons-departure-from-fox-news/
    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) bashed Dominion Voting Systems over the departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, following a report that the popular conservative primetime host was fired from the network as part of its settlement with the voting software company.
    Carlson was told by a member of the network’s board of directors that he was taken off the air as part of the Fox News settlement with Dominion, according to Axios, which cited unidentified sources briefed on the conversations. Abbott said if the reporting was true, then he is “happy that Dominion does not operate in Texas.”
    “We may disagree with other’s positions, but we should never try to improperly silence views contrary to our own,” Abbott said on Twitter on Saturday. “If Dominion wants to do business with Texas in the future, they should first answer questions about what role, if any, they played in silencing a prominent conservative journalist.”
    A Fox News spokesperson in a statement to Axios said that the idea that Carlson was let go of as part of the settlement was “categorically false.” An attorney for Dominion also told the news outlet that it did not insist on Carlson being fired...

    Tucker intends to subpoena every internal email and memo from both sides, with regard to the Fox/Dominion case, he’s convinced there was a quid pro quo to fire him as part of the settlement.
    Dominion (and specifically their PE owners) only care about making money. All they really want is an agreement from Fox to never question their voting machines integrity.
    You sure that $700m wasn’t something they quite liked as well?
    Sorry, I should have said "in addition to the $700m, all they really want is..."

    It would be interesting to discover at what price PE got into Dominion.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,388

    Farooq said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @jonsopel

    Don’t want to go over the top, but this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Someone who was in the cabinet when legislation on voter ID was agreed and went through parliament acknowledges it WAS an attempt to gerrymander the elections

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1658076536350601216

    Said at the conference of loons.
    Which appears to be taking some of its themes from the US right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/low-birthrate-is-uk-top-priority-tory-mp-tells-rightwing-conference-miriam-cates
    ...The UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, a Conservative MP has argued at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.

    Addressing the National Conservatism gathering, run by a US-based thinktank, Miriam Cates said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction..
    Weirdly, the birth rate in the USSR fell precipitously at the time that actual Marxism ended there.

    I do wonder what this "cultural Marxism" is. Often people use that as code for "the Jews", but in this case I suspect not since Jews tend to have similar numbers of children as Christians.

    Perhaps "cultural Marxism" is, in this case, a cipher for insecure accommodation and zero-hours contracts?
    That's called capitalism.
    Cultural Marxism tends to be a synonym for wokery.

    And there are few more keen to lay the evils of the world at the door of cultural Marxism and/or wokery than me.

    But I don't think we can pin it specifically for falling birthrates. There are many, many reasons but I'd say #1 of them is the difficulty the breeding-age cohort have in owning a house.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    An interesting extension of the free speech argument.

    Abbott knocks Dominion over Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox News
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4003679-abbott-knocks-dominion-over-tucker-carlsons-departure-from-fox-news/
    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) bashed Dominion Voting Systems over the departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, following a report that the popular conservative primetime host was fired from the network as part of its settlement with the voting software company.
    Carlson was told by a member of the network’s board of directors that he was taken off the air as part of the Fox News settlement with Dominion, according to Axios, which cited unidentified sources briefed on the conversations. Abbott said if the reporting was true, then he is “happy that Dominion does not operate in Texas.”
    “We may disagree with other’s positions, but we should never try to improperly silence views contrary to our own,” Abbott said on Twitter on Saturday. “If Dominion wants to do business with Texas in the future, they should first answer questions about what role, if any, they played in silencing a prominent conservative journalist.”
    A Fox News spokesperson in a statement to Axios said that the idea that Carlson was let go of as part of the settlement was “categorically false.” An attorney for Dominion also told the news outlet that it did not insist on Carlson being fired...

    Tucker intends to subpoena every internal email and memo from both sides, with regard to the Fox/Dominion case, he’s convinced there was a quid pro quo to fire him as part of the settlement.
    Dominion (and specifically their PE owners) only care about making money. All they really want is an agreement from Fox to never question their voting machines integrity.
    Of course. But Tucker is hoping to find an email somewhere, that says, or at least alludes, to him being fired as part of the settlement.

    He has a contract with Fox until the end of 2024, and they appear to be intending to throw lawyers at keeping him silent until after the election.

    The one thing he has, is his own Twitter account, and now it looks like Twitter is about to fast-track their video offering to get him as a platform exclusive.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,091
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @jonsopel

    Don’t want to go over the top, but this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Someone who was in the cabinet when legislation on voter ID was agreed and went through parliament acknowledges it WAS an attempt to gerrymander the elections

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1658076536350601216

    Said at the conference of loons.
    Which appears to be taking some of its themes from the US right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/low-birthrate-is-uk-top-priority-tory-mp-tells-rightwing-conference-miriam-cates
    ...The UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, a Conservative MP has argued at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.

    Addressing the National Conservatism gathering, run by a US-based thinktank, Miriam Cates said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction..
    The whole purpose of this well funded conference is to import the craziness of the US right into UK politics. See also recent attempts to rig the franchise (which a former Tory cabinet minister has admitted was gerrymandering). The Tories are utterly toxic now.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,091
    Cookie said:

    Farooq said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @jonsopel

    Don’t want to go over the top, but this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Someone who was in the cabinet when legislation on voter ID was agreed and went through parliament acknowledges it WAS an attempt to gerrymander the elections

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1658076536350601216

    Said at the conference of loons.
    Which appears to be taking some of its themes from the US right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/low-birthrate-is-uk-top-priority-tory-mp-tells-rightwing-conference-miriam-cates
    ...The UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, a Conservative MP has argued at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.

    Addressing the National Conservatism gathering, run by a US-based thinktank, Miriam Cates said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction..
    Weirdly, the birth rate in the USSR fell precipitously at the time that actual Marxism ended there.

    I do wonder what this "cultural Marxism" is. Often people use that as code for "the Jews", but in this case I suspect not since Jews tend to have similar numbers of children as Christians.

    Perhaps "cultural Marxism" is, in this case, a cipher for insecure accommodation and zero-hours contracts?
    That's called capitalism.
    Cultural Marxism tends to be a synonym for wokery.

    And there are few more keen to lay the evils of the world at the door of cultural Marxism and/or wokery than me.

    But I don't think we can pin it specifically for falling birthrates. There are many, many reasons but I'd say #1 of them is the difficulty the breeding-age cohort have in owning a house.
    Of course it is.
    You can call out wokery if that's your bag but I'd be wary of throwing around terms like "cultural Marxism" which have a very nasty pedigree.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,014
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    An interesting extension of the free speech argument.

    Abbott knocks Dominion over Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox News
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4003679-abbott-knocks-dominion-over-tucker-carlsons-departure-from-fox-news/
    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) bashed Dominion Voting Systems over the departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, following a report that the popular conservative primetime host was fired from the network as part of its settlement with the voting software company.
    Carlson was told by a member of the network’s board of directors that he was taken off the air as part of the Fox News settlement with Dominion, according to Axios, which cited unidentified sources briefed on the conversations. Abbott said if the reporting was true, then he is “happy that Dominion does not operate in Texas.”
    “We may disagree with other’s positions, but we should never try to improperly silence views contrary to our own,” Abbott said on Twitter on Saturday. “If Dominion wants to do business with Texas in the future, they should first answer questions about what role, if any, they played in silencing a prominent conservative journalist.”
    A Fox News spokesperson in a statement to Axios said that the idea that Carlson was let go of as part of the settlement was “categorically false.” An attorney for Dominion also told the news outlet that it did not insist on Carlson being fired...

    Tucker intends to subpoena every internal email and memo from both sides, with regard to the Fox/Dominion case, he’s convinced there was a quid pro quo to fire him as part of the settlement.
    Dominion (and specifically their PE owners) only care about making money. All they really want is an agreement from Fox to never question their voting machines integrity.
    You sure that $700m wasn’t something they quite liked as well?
    Sorry, I should have said "in addition to the $700m, all they really want is..."

    It would be interesting to discover at what price PE got into Dominion.
    $38m for a 76% stake

    Almost as good as Denis Ribon buying 90% of PolyPlus for $10m and then selling it 6 years later for $2.7bn
This discussion has been closed.