Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
It’s funny how JRM is no longer seen as a lying toerag now that he says something that is useful to his former accusers
Who, specifically? Or is this another example of imagined hypocrisy?
There have been approving comments from people who haven’t previously had much time for him. “Lying toerag” was my own phrase but suspect not too far from the truth of their opinion of him.
Plenty of reasons to dislike Mogg that have nothing to do with whether he tells the truth or not. For me, "ghastly hypocrite" always got closer to the mark.
In that sense, the "oh you believe him now" thing worked better with someone like Dominic Cummings. People who should have known better did lap up his gossip about Boris once DC left the government, and that was foolish.
Ghastly works too… don’t think you need to modify it with hypocrite… he’s just all round ghastly
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
For maximum trolling, should it not now be Lingua Anglia?
Isn't "Lingua Franca" itself French? Or is it Latin?
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
Who would have thought that it would be older voters which didn't have passports or drivers licences??
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
Ah. Thanks. Same might also apply to granting the vote to EU citizens here, of course.
Most Eastern Europeans are very far from socialist and quite socially conservative.
Maybe both sides should stop these futile attempts to rig the deck, and just focus on good policy and government?
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
Has he? I thought all he'd said was the measure has been negative for the Tories - not that it was designed to be positive for the Tories.
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.
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,
Yes, the Henley constituency is broadly like that. Thame and Henley are the two largest towns. John Howell (current MP and, as such, Johnson's successor) has a comfortable majority but is not particularly liked. If the LibDems throw resources into the constituency they have a chance of taking it; if the candidate is Johnson, even more so.
Expect to see this bar-chart used repeatedly over the next few years:
John Howell announced in April this year he would not be standing for re-election in Henley
Because he can see the direction the seat is going and retirement looks like a nice plan...
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
How can someone obtain a good degree from Oxford, yet barely be capable of feeding and dressing himself?
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
For maximum trolling, should it not now be Lingua Anglia?
Isn't "Lingua Franca" itself French? Or is it Latin?
I get that there isn't an easy alternative to our current exam system (although Canada seems to manage it) but if we have an education system that judges kids by their ability to produce knowledge under severe stress, we are entrenching disadvantage.
But many professional jobs require just that. If the issue cannot be solved, the young man needs to be guided toward a future career without these sorts of challenges.
Certainly some jobs require performance under significant stress. And some jobs require a certain level of education. But the two sets are far from perfectly overlapping. My job, as an example, certainly needs the kind of skills typically tested and honed through a degree level education (and often job ads mandate having a degree), but it is far from being stressful, and I rarely have to think on my feet. Conversely I'm sure there are jobs which you could walk into without any formal qualifications but which are way more day to day stress than I could handle.
I was brilliant at exams. Quite enjoyed them. Didn't have to work too hard in preparation for them. They were an enjoyable three hours doing puzzles (maths) or developing an argument (geography etc), preceded by a few weeks of no homework in which the physical effort of writing or producing any measurable results was required. And I always did pretty well. An observer of me at 14 or 16 or 18 might have thought measured by the metrics of exam success I was destined for great things.
Real life however turned out to be rather more difficult than just knowing stuff, and stressful situations in real life are rather harder and more unpleasant to deal with than a jolly jaunt through an A Level. Regrettably, I think what school taught me was that life was pretty easy and you don't need to try particularly hard and you'll still do well, which probably wasn't the best lesson to take.
I mean, I've done ok. I'm in a job which I find interesting and which pays me pretty well and in which I am dry and warm and secure and which affords me little moments to come and argue good-naturedly with you lot. But most of my mates at school, despite doing in most cases less well at school, have done rather better with their careers, and in all honesty I don't envy them one bit as their jobs strike me as a mix of unexciting white collar tasks coupled with terrifying levels of responsibility. I can't help wondering whether I'd have been considerably better suited to learning a trade.
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
For maximum trolling, should it not now be Lingua Anglia?
No; either lingua angliae [genitive of the country name] or [edit] lingua anglica [the adjectival form].
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
(That's not quite true: British citizens are allowed to vote in Irish national elections, albeit not in their Presidential, on the basis that Irish citizens don't get to vote for the Monarch.)
British citizens are also not allowed to vote in Irish Constitutional referendums - presumably on the basis that Britain doesn't have a constitution that Irish citizens in Britain can vote on amendments to.
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
Has he? I thought all he'd said was the measure has been negative for the Tories - not that it was designed to be positive for the Tories.
The quote was:
" “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections."
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
The difficulty Braverman has with the level of immigration is that she is in government and immigration is part of her brief. If she really dislikes government policy in that area, she really ought to resign.
(Who was the minister who called for Bozza to resign, but decided not to resign herself... oh bloody hell it was Braverman, wasn't it?)
“I don’t want to resign because I have that duty and we need an Attorney in government”
Attorney General SuellaBraverman says that, despite calling for the Prime Minister to resign, she will continue in her role.
Looks like slowing down on the India trade deal might have paid dividends. The Indian motoring industry are now willing to countenance dropping the 70%-100% tariffs on car imports, although with a quota:
That, together with the phasing out of tarriffs on Scotch, already announced, would make this a pretty decent deal for Britain, with a usually hugely-protectionist country.
(Of course, the biggest benificiary of this would be, er, Tata)
I'm a bit sceptical.
I think Modi and the BJP are a bit like to us what the ERG are to the EU.
They only want a trade deal with the UK if they can sell it as a defeat for their former colonial rulers, hence all the stuff about repatriation of the Crown Jewels etc., and this is on top of his needless desecration /destruction of anything in India built between 1750 and 1950, includings Lutyens architectural works in New Delhi, which plenty of his own people have misgivings about.
Modi's way of operating is to whip people up and get them angry about stuff.
He doesn't want to get his own back just on us. He wants to take swipe at India's Muslim rulers, too..
Nats gonna Nat.
I'd almost prefer Congress. In fact, I probably would.
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
Has the Academie commented?
I can foresee a future where France votes to leave the EU because of the increasing dominance of English, and in the ensuing debate end up adopting all our Brexit-era expressions: "Frexit means Frexit", "le Hard Frexit", "le divorce bill".
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
If you take your view to its logical conclusion, then we should abolish the concept of citizenship altogether in favour of residency and turn the national goverment into a kind of supersized local council.
I don't agree with the characterisation in the latter half of your post about "supersized local council"... national government is qualitatively different to that. But otherwise... yes. Exactly. If someone is here legally for a period of time, say, five years in the last ten (I'm flexible on details) then yeah, give them the vote. Flip side, if someone's been living in another country for a period (e.g. >5 years in the last ten) then they shouldn't have a vote here.
If you live here legally or if you don't, that's what's important in my mind.
In what ways do you think migration to the UK should be limited?
You should have to fight a wild tiger in the arena
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
For maximum trolling, should it not now be Lingua Anglia?
Isn't "Lingua Franca" itself French? Or is it Latin?
PS And it must be Italian, as Latin would be lingua gallica.
The Tory nationalist right currently planning for a decade or more in the wilderness right out in the open really is a sight to behold. Who inside the party is going to tell them how damaging this all looks?
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
If you take your view to its logical conclusion, then we should abolish the concept of citizenship altogether in favour of residency and turn the national goverment into a kind of supersized local council.
I don't agree with the characterisation in the latter half of your post about "supersized local council"... national government is qualitatively different to that. But otherwise... yes. Exactly. If someone is here legally for a period of time, say, five years in the last ten (I'm flexible on details) then yeah, give them the vote. Flip side, if someone's been living in another country for a period (e.g. >5 years in the last ten) then they shouldn't have a vote here.
If you live here legally or if you don't, that's what's important in my mind.
In what ways do you think migration to the UK should be limited?
You should have to fight a wild tiger in the arena
It was a serious question. If in an ideal world you'd want free movement to be extended, then what is the distinction between legal and non-legal residence?
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
Has he? I thought all he'd said was the measure has been negative for the Tories - not that it was designed to be positive for the Tories.
The quote was:
" “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections."
If anything, the quote is actually more damning than I'd thought.
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
For maximum trolling, should it not now be Lingua Anglia?
No; either lingua angliae [genitive of the country name] or [edit] lingua anglica [the adjectival form].
Thanks.
Although this sort of chat is why I did science and not languages at school.
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
This is so true and in some respects it puts native English speakers at a disadvantage, especially non-Americans (because it is a limited vocabulary version of American English that is the global lingua franca). British English in particular has a lot of ideosyncratic phrases that are extremely confusing to Global Bad English speakers. And try speaking to a Global Bad English speaker in a regional accent.
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
Has he? I thought all he'd said was the measure has been negative for the Tories - not that it was designed to be positive for the Tories.
The quote was:
" “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections."
If anything, the quote is actually more damning than I'd thought.
It doesn’t quite say that it was gerrymandering… but it’s designed to be a reasonable inference
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Not paranoid just realistic. They may not set out to do anything that harms the country but if the decisions they helped enact do serious harm to the country then they always have the option of leaving for another country. Not something that most of us have.
Just look at the justifiable criticism of those who voted for Brexit and are now taking advantage of their alternative nationality to bugger off elsewhere. Now as you know I don't think Brexit has been bad for the UK but clearly they do and are running away based on that perception.
Or the alternative. In a decade we have another EU referendum and the 6 million or so EU citizens who are being referenced by the Guardian are able to vote. Many of them are here to work but then plan to retire back to their own countries. Should they be able to decide the future of a country which they do not consider they have a future in?
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
This is so true and in some respects it puts native English speakers at a disadvantage, especially non-Americans (because it is a limited vocabulary version of American English that is the global lingua franca). British English in particular has a lot of ideosyncratic phrases that are extremely confusing to Global Bad English speakers. And try speaking to a Global Bad English speaker in a regional accent.
I would argue - though I am aware this is not what the article meant! - that the UK leads the world in Bad English. Specifically, today, people who say 'them' when they mean 'those'. Including the head of HR at our place. Ugh.
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
Has he? I thought all he'd said was the measure has been negative for the Tories - not that it was designed to be positive for the Tories.
The quote was:
" “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections."
If anything, the quote is actually more damning than I'd thought.
Having said that, despite being generally cream-crackers, there is a small tiny part of common sense in JRM that's being held hostage and is aching to get out.
We see this in revealing statements like this, his belated backing of TM's original Brexit deal on the basis it was "half a loaf", his recognition that changing leader again before the next GE would be suicide and, also, his popularity with left-wing female MPs, like Mhairi Black and Jess Phillips, which never ceases to knock me off my chair.
I get that there isn't an easy alternative to our current exam system (although Canada seems to manage it) but if we have an education system that judges kids by their ability to produce knowledge under severe stress, we are entrenching disadvantage.
But many professional jobs require just that. If the issue cannot be solved, the young man needs to be guided toward a future career without these sorts of challenges.
Certainly some jobs require performance under significant stress. And some jobs require a certain level of education. But the two sets are far from perfectly overlapping. My job, as an example, certainly needs the kind of skills typically tested and honed through a degree level education (and often job ads mandate having a degree), but it is far from being stressful, and I rarely have to think on my feet. Conversely I'm sure there are jobs which you could walk into without any formal qualifications but which are way more day to day stress than I could handle.
I was brilliant at exams. Quite enjoyed them. Didn't have to work too hard in preparation for them. They were an enjoyable three hours doing puzzles (maths) or developing an argument (geography etc), preceded by a few weeks of no homework in which the physical effort of writing or producing any measurable results was required. And I always did pretty well. An observer of me at 14 or 16 or 18 might have thought measured by the metrics of exam success I was destined for great things.
Real life however turned out to be rather more difficult than just knowing stuff, and stressful situations in real life are rather harder and more unpleasant to deal with than a jolly jaunt through an A Level. Regrettably, I think what school taught me was that life was pretty easy and you don't need to try particularly hard and you'll still do well, which probably wasn't the best lesson to take.
I mean, I've done ok. I'm in a job which I find interesting and which pays me pretty well and in which I am dry and warm and secure and which affords me little moments to come and argue good-naturedly with you lot. But most of my mates at school, despite doing in most cases less well at school, have done rather better with their careers, and in all honesty I don't envy them one bit as their jobs strike me as a mix of unexciting white collar tasks coupled with terrifying levels of responsibility. I can't help wondering whether I'd have been considerably better suited to learning a trade.
Know what you mean
I harbour a suspicion that we do a disservice to those like you Cookie who don’t find school challenging - it’s like lulling you into a false sense of security. I got through GCSEs and A levels with almost no work, and it was only by nearly failing the first year at uni that I recognised the need for (and rewards of) genuine hard work.
I also wholeheartedly share the disinclination towards high responsibility low stimulation jobs that you mention!
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
Has he? I thought all he'd said was the measure has been negative for the Tories - not that it was designed to be positive for the Tories.
The quote was:
" “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections."
If anything, the quote is actually more damning than I'd thought.
It's quite Gerald Ratnerish really - though Mogg and everyone else has a lot less to lose than Ratner. But it is a sort of humorous 'true' speech 'amongst friends' that is likely to cause a lot of trouble.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Not paranoid jjust realistic. They may not set out to do anything that harms the country but if the decisions they helped enact do serious harm to the country then they always have the option of leaving for another country. Not something that most of us have.
Just look at the justifiable criticism of those who voted for Brexit and are now taking advantage of their alternative nationality to bugger off elsewhere. Now as you know I don't think Brexit has been bad for the UK but clearly they do and are running away based on that perception.
Or the alternative. In a decade we have another EU referendum and the 6 million or so EU citizens who are being referenced by the Guardian are able to vote. Many of them are here to work but then plan to retire back to their own countries. Should they be able to decide the future of a country which they do not consider they have a future in?
Again, I refer you to the fact that people with British passports ARE allowed to vote in this country, even if they have already retired to another country. If I had moved to Spain back when Gordon Brown was PM, I might still be eligible to vote in the next election.
We have to have a test that says this person has a stake in this country, this other person doesn't. On this we agree. I say let people put their money where their mouth is. You vote where you live. I'm entirely comfortable with EU citizens voting without any reference to whether their vote will work with or against mine (fuck knows who I'm going to vote for next time anyway). If they've been living here for a period of time.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
You can have all those things and still be planning on leaving again in 2 or 3 years. In fact that is how millions of people do work around the world.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
Yeah this is precisely where I am. There are a lot of people out there who perhaps have never lived overseas and don't have recent immigrant experience in their family history. But we live in a world of growing international mobility, and I think that democracies have to show some flexibility in terms of the franchise to ensure that fewer people fall into the taxation without representation trap simply because of the complexities of often competing citizenship frameworks. People also really need to break out of this mindset that somehow migration is inherently bad or threatening. The fact that even a child of immigrants like Suella Braverman can adopt this line of reasoning just illustrates what a strangely seductive mindset it is.
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
Has he? I thought all he'd said was the measure has been negative for the Tories - not that it was designed to be positive for the Tories.
The quote was:
" “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections."
If anything, the quote is actually more damning than I'd thought.
Yet another indication that, for all his appearances, JRM is actually quite, quite stupid.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Not paranoid jjust realistic. They may not set out to do anything that harms the country but if the decisions they helped enact do serious harm to the country then they always have the option of leaving for another country. Not something that most of us have.
Just look at the justifiable criticism of those who voted for Brexit and are now taking advantage of their alternative nationality to bugger off elsewhere. Now as you know I don't think Brexit has been bad for the UK but clearly they do and are running away based on that perception.
Or the alternative. In a decade we have another EU referendum and the 6 million or so EU citizens who are being referenced by the Guardian are able to vote. Many of them are here to work but then plan to retire back to their own countries. Should they be able to decide the future of a country which they do not consider they have a future in?
Again, I refer you to the fact that people with British passports ARE allowed to vote in this country, even if they have already retired to another country. If I had moved to Spain back when Gordon Brown was PM, I might still be eligible to vote in the next election.
We have to have a test that says this person has a stake in this country, this other person doesn't. On this we agree. I say let people put their money where their mouth is. You vote where you live. I'm entirely comfortable with EU citizens voting without any reference to whether their vote will work with or against mine (fuck knows who I'm going to vote for next time anyway). If they've been living here for a period of time.
And again I refer you to the fact I have stated already that they should not be able to vote. You keep bringing up examples of people who can vote - all of whom I have already said should not be able to - and try to use that as a justification for extending the franchise even further. In fact what we should be doing is reducing the franchise for National elections to those who actually have a vested interest in the long term future of this country. So no Commonwealth or Irish voting (we can except N Ireland given its strange status), no one who lives overseas for more than, say 5 years - they get the vote back when they resettle in the UK - and no one who does not hold UK citizenship.
This is a coherent set of rules and is what works in practically every other country.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
I understand that to qualify they have to have 5 years settled status and be a taxpayer, but on reading more on the subject I do believe Starmer has opened a can of worms
Starmer said this in 2020. It is Boris and his proxies who opened the current can of worms, one the hand creating fear of Starmer whilst also lobbing a grenade at Sunak and the Tory establishments direction for gerrymandering.
I get that there isn't an easy alternative to our current exam system (although Canada seems to manage it) but if we have an education system that judges kids by their ability to produce knowledge under severe stress, we are entrenching disadvantage.
But many professional jobs require just that. If the issue cannot be solved, the young man needs to be guided toward a future career without these sorts of challenges.
Certainly some jobs require performance under significant stress. And some jobs require a certain level of education. But the two sets are far from perfectly overlapping. My job, as an example, certainly needs the kind of skills typically tested and honed through a degree level education (and often job ads mandate having a degree), but it is far from being stressful, and I rarely have to think on my feet. Conversely I'm sure there are jobs which you could walk into without any formal qualifications but which are way more day to day stress than I could handle.
I was brilliant at exams. Quite enjoyed them. Didn't have to work too hard in preparation for them. They were an enjoyable three hours doing puzzles (maths) or developing an argument (geography etc), preceded by a few weeks of no homework in which the physical effort of writing or producing any measurable results was required. And I always did pretty well. An observer of me at 14 or 16 or 18 might have thought measured by the metrics of exam success I was destined for great things.
Real life however turned out to be rather more difficult than just knowing stuff, and stressful situations in real life are rather harder and more unpleasant to deal with than a jolly jaunt through an A Level. Regrettably, I think what school taught me was that life was pretty easy and you don't need to try particularly hard and you'll still do well, which probably wasn't the best lesson to take.
I mean, I've done ok. I'm in a job which I find interesting and which pays me pretty well and in which I am dry and warm and secure and which affords me little moments to come and argue good-naturedly with you lot. But most of my mates at school, despite doing in most cases less well at school, have done rather better with their careers, and in all honesty I don't envy them one bit as their jobs strike me as a mix of unexciting white collar tasks coupled with terrifying levels of responsibility. I can't help wondering whether I'd have been considerably better suited to learning a trade.
Know what you mean
I harbour a suspicion that we do a disservice to those like you Cookie who don’t find school challenging - it’s like lulling you into a false sense of security. I got through GCSEs and A levels with almost no work, and it was only by nearly failing the first year at uni that I recognised the need for (and rewards of) genuine hard work.
I also wholeheartedly share the disinclination towards high responsibility low stimulation jobs that you mention!
I had nightmares (for years) about failing my university finals in Civil Engineering.
In reality, I got a solid 2:1 but I had to work for it and some sort of guilt about that set in afterwards, possibly coupled with the fact I forgot most of the equations/theory at a conscious level, whilst still retaining them at a sub-conscious level.
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
This is so true and in some respects it puts native English speakers at a disadvantage, especially non-Americans (because it is a limited vocabulary version of American English that is the global lingua franca). British English in particular has a lot of ideosyncratic phrases that are extremely confusing to Global Bad English speakers. And try speaking to a Global Bad English speaker in a regional accent.
I would argue - though I am aware this is not what the article meant! - that the UK leads the world in Bad English. Specifically, today, people who say 'them' when they mean 'those'. Including the head of HR at our place. Ugh.
If I ever get convicted for murder it will be because someone has said "yourself" to me when they mean "you".
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
Yeah this is precisely where I am. There are a lot of people out there who perhaps have never lived overseas and don't have recent immigrant experience in their family history. But we live in a world of growing international mobility, and I think that democracies have to show some flexibility in terms of the franchise to ensure that fewer people fall into the taxation without representation trap simply because of the complexities of often competing citizenship frameworks. People also really need to break out of this mindset that somehow migration is inherently bad or threatening. The fact that even a child of immigrants like Suella Braverman can adopt this line of reasoning just illustrates what a strangely seductive mindset it is.
Do you think we should abolish controls on migration and have unilateral free movement? We’d gain first mover advantage over the rest of the world.
The nationalist Tory right currently planning for a decade in opposition in the full glare of publicity really is quite a thing, isn't it? Who on earth inside the Tory party is in a position to stop them, though?
Not necessarily guaranteed the Nationalist right will be in opposition for ten years is it? Look who has won the most recent elections for the right in the western world. Trump, Meloni, Johnson, Morrison, Netanyahu and Le Pen got closer than many expected in 2022. In Sweden and Finland and Austria too the centre right only won with the support of a Nationalist right party.
Indeed since Trump won in 2016 only in Greece and Ireland have mainstream parties of the centre right in the West won a general election outright on a non Nationalist platform and in Ireland that was technically a coalition of FF and FG with SF winning most votes and seats
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
This is so true and in some respects it puts native English speakers at a disadvantage, especially non-Americans (because it is a limited vocabulary version of American English that is the global lingua franca). British English in particular has a lot of ideosyncratic phrases that are extremely confusing to Global Bad English speakers. And try speaking to a Global Bad English speaker in a regional accent.
It's much easier for a native English speaker to speak an internationally understandable English, than it is for a non-native speaker. So long as the native speaker isn't so arrogant as to not bother to make sure their listeners can understand what they are saying.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
You can have all those things and still be planning on leaving again in 2 or 3 years. In fact that is how millions of people do work around the world.
Yes, you can, and that applies to people with British passports too. I don't think intentions is a realistic test though. You can't ask everyone where they see themselves in five years' time as a basis for enfranchisement, so you have to use something else. You say passport, I say residency in the years immediately prior. I don't think either option is unreasonable but I do think "my" way is better. In the end, I think more democracy is better than less. Getting people involved in the political process helps people become better citizens. People often talk about integration... well, what better way than asking people to speak up for how they think their communities should be run?
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
Yeah this is precisely where I am. There are a lot of people out there who perhaps have never lived overseas and don't have recent immigrant experience in their family history. But we live in a world of growing international mobility, and I think that democracies have to show some flexibility in terms of the franchise to ensure that fewer people fall into the taxation without representation trap simply because of the complexities of often competing citizenship frameworks. People also really need to break out of this mindset that somehow migration is inherently bad or threatening. The fact that even a child of immigrants like Suella Braverman can adopt this line of reasoning just illustrates what a strangely seductive mindset it is.
Migration is certainly not bad or threatening. But when migrants settle somewhere they should take citizenship of the country in which they settle. At least if they want to take part in the democratic process of that country.
And millions of people fall into the taxation without representation trap as you call it. They do so without even living in the country tacxing them. I worked on and off for 15 years in Norway and paid Norwegian taxes. But there was no way in a million years Norway was going to let me vote in their elections. Nor did I expect them to. I was there to do a job and then go home. Even if I kept going back for 15 years.
If this is the sort of thing Labour tries to pull in opposition, what do you think they'll do in Government?
They could try to pull a massive voter suppression scheme I suppose, as JRM has just confirmed the Tories have recently embarked upon.
Which one? I think the Tories are trialling two variations at the moment, the one where they rule out 2m voters without ID, and the other where they piss off their own supporters so much they don't show up.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
You can have all those things and still be planning on leaving again in 2 or 3 years. In fact that is how millions of people do work around the world.
Yes, you can, and that applies to people with British passports too. I don't think intentions is a realistic test though. You can't ask everyone where they see themselves in five years' time as a basis for enfranchisement, so you have to use something else. You say passport, I say residency in the years immediately prior. I don't think either option is unreasonable but I do think "my" way is better. In the end, I think more democracy is better than less. Getting people involved in the political process helps people become better citizens. People often talk about integration... well, what better way than asking people to speak up for how they think their communities should be run?
They already can. They can vote in local elections. That is directly addressing how their communities are run.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Not paranoid jjust realistic. They may not set out to do anything that harms the country but if the decisions they helped enact do serious harm to the country then they always have the option of leaving for another country. Not something that most of us have.
Just look at the justifiable criticism of those who voted for Brexit and are now taking advantage of their alternative nationality to bugger off elsewhere. Now as you know I don't think Brexit has been bad for the UK but clearly they do and are running away based on that perception.
Or the alternative. In a decade we have another EU referendum and the 6 million or so EU citizens who are being referenced by the Guardian are able to vote. Many of them are here to work but then plan to retire back to their own countries. Should they be able to decide the future of a country which they do not consider they have a future in?
Again, I refer you to the fact that people with British passports ARE allowed to vote in this country, even if they have already retired to another country. If I had moved to Spain back when Gordon Brown was PM, I might still be eligible to vote in the next election.
We have to have a test that says this person has a stake in this country, this other person doesn't. On this we agree. I say let people put their money where their mouth is. You vote where you live. I'm entirely comfortable with EU citizens voting without any reference to whether their vote will work with or against mine (fuck knows who I'm going to vote for next time anyway). If they've been living here for a period of time.
And again I refer you to the fact I have stated already that they should not be able to vote. You keep bringing up examples of people who can vote - all of whom I have already said should not be able to - and try to use that as a justification for extending the franchise even further. In fact what we should be doing is reducing the franchise for National elections to those who actually have a vested interest in the long term future of this country. So no Commonwealth or Irish voting (we can except N Ireland given its strange status), no one who lives overseas for more than, say 5 years - they get the vote back when they resettle in the UK - and no one who does not hold UK citizenship.
This is a coherent set of rules and is what works in practically every other country.
I agree "your" rules are coherent and commonplace. No dispute there. I do think that your residency requirement actually already puts you half way to my position. You might not be willing to cross the other half, and that's fine. Since neither of us really have any logical flaws in our positions, I think we're just at a point where we have to agree to disagree.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
Yeah this is precisely where I am. There are a lot of people out there who perhaps have never lived overseas and don't have recent immigrant experience in their family history. But we live in a world of growing international mobility, and I think that democracies have to show some flexibility in terms of the franchise to ensure that fewer people fall into the taxation without representation trap simply because of the complexities of often competing citizenship frameworks. People also really need to break out of this mindset that somehow migration is inherently bad or threatening. The fact that even a child of immigrants like Suella Braverman can adopt this line of reasoning just illustrates what a strangely seductive mindset it is.
Do you think we should abolish controls on migration and have unilateral free movement? We’d gain first mover advantage over the rest of the world.
No. But equally we shouldn't constantly be talking about immigration like it is a terrible problem with no beneficial aspects and talking about immigrants like they are dangerous parasites rather than people like anyone else. When I contrast what I read here with what I experience among friends, family and colleagues who have come here from other parts of the world I just don't recognise the picture that is painted here at all. Why resent people who have done so much to enrich this country? It's just so dumb and mean-spirited.
maxh - A few years ago, I read about a heart medicine -- that was being used (off label) by a few symphony musicians because if kept them calm during performances. It's been a while, so I can't think of the name of the medicine.
I should add that the article where I read about this medicine wasn't entirely sympthetic. (It was probably in the NYT.)
Over the past few years the countries with higher immigration rates to the UK has changed. We have less people from the EU and more from the commonwealth.
A knock on consequence of this is that the new immigrants can vote in UK general elections whereas the EU immigrants mainly could not.
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
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.
Yes, falling birth rates in the West have long been a preoccupation of the US hard-Right. I don't know if the reason they give for this concern - Christian white folk being outbred by the Muslims - was made explicit on this occasion.
More a case of atheist white folk being outbred by Muslims, Christian evangelicals also have lots of children and Catholics used to have more too
Dear, oh Lord!
Atheists, go forth and multiply.
Outside of a few small groups (like Ultra Orthodox Jews) there is bugger all correlation between religiosity and TFR.
Italy, for example, is way more religious than the UK (73% say religion is important vs 25% in the UK), and yet has a much worse TFR.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
The difficulty Braverman has with the level of immigration is that she is in government and immigration is part of her brief. If she really dislikes government policy in that area, she really ought to resign.
(Who was the minister who called for Bozza to resign, but decided not to resign herself... oh bloody hell it was Braverman, wasn't it?)
“I don’t want to resign because I have that duty and we need an Attorney in government”
Attorney General SuellaBraverman says that, despite calling for the Prime Minister to resign, she will continue in her role.
The difficulty she has is common to many leading Tories - overweening ambition, and not much else.
Starmer was quite right in noting in response to her 'fruit picker' screed that, er, they've been in power for 13 years so have had ample time to do something about it.
The madder end of the Cabinet all seem to be railing against an establishment that is... themselves. It is really weird.
The nationalist Tory right currently planning for a decade in opposition in the full glare of publicity really is quite a thing, isn't it? Who on earth inside the Tory party is in a position to stop them, though?
Not necessarily guaranteed the Nationalist right will be in opposition for ten years is it? Look who has won the most recent elections for the right in the western world. Trump, Meloni, Johnson, Morrison, Netanyahu and Le Pen got closer than many expected in 2022. In Sweden and Finland and Austria too the centre right only won with the support of a Nationalist right party.
Indeed since Trump won in 2016 only in Greece and Ireland have mainstream parties of the centre right in the West won a general election outright on a non Nationalist platform and in Ireland that was technically a coalition of FF and FG with SF winning most votes and seats
There is no viable Nationalist Right other than the Tories in the UK. Nor will there be, at least until the Tories are thoroughly broken. And the rogues gallery you listed of Nationalist right leaders are only in that position because of decades of building support so that they were ready to take advantage of circumstance - with the possible exception of Trump but even he relied upon decades old organsiations and movements on the fringes of politcis.
The UK doesn't really do Nationalist right. Just as it doesn't really do true solcialist left. And I for one am content with that.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
You can have all those things and still be planning on leaving again in 2 or 3 years. In fact that is how millions of people do work around the world.
Yes, you can, and that applies to people with British passports too. I don't think intentions is a realistic test though. You can't ask everyone where they see themselves in five years' time as a basis for enfranchisement, so you have to use something else. You say passport, I say residency in the years immediately prior. I don't think either option is unreasonable but I do think "my" way is better. In the end, I think more democracy is better than less. Getting people involved in the political process helps people become better citizens. People often talk about integration... well, what better way than asking people to speak up for how they think their communities should be run?
They already can. They can vote in local elections. That is directly addressing how their communities are run.
Yes, they can. Which makes the prohibition on voting in national elections (which is also part of how our communities are run! Global decisions have local effects!) all the more mystifying to me.
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
This is so true and in some respects it puts native English speakers at a disadvantage, especially non-Americans (because it is a limited vocabulary version of American English that is the global lingua franca). British English in particular has a lot of ideosyncratic phrases that are extremely confusing to Global Bad English speakers. And try speaking to a Global Bad English speaker in a regional accent.
It's much easier for a native English speaker to speak an internationally understandable English, than it is for a non-native speaker. So long as the native speaker isn't so arrogant as to not bother to make sure their listeners can understand what they are saying.
Yes, for sure. Sometimes though you don't realise how unknown some parts of British English are until you've used one of them and are faced with a roomful of blank looks. It takes some time to learn how to speak Gobal Bad English.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
Yeah this is precisely where I am. There are a lot of people out there who perhaps have never lived overseas and don't have recent immigrant experience in their family history. But we live in a world of growing international mobility, and I think that democracies have to show some flexibility in terms of the franchise to ensure that fewer people fall into the taxation without representation trap simply because of the complexities of often competing citizenship frameworks. People also really need to break out of this mindset that somehow migration is inherently bad or threatening. The fact that even a child of immigrants like Suella Braverman can adopt this line of reasoning just illustrates what a strangely seductive mindset it is.
Migration is certainly not bad or threatening. But when migrants settle somewhere they should take citizenship of the country in which they settle. At least if they want to take part in the democratic process of that country.
And millions of people fall into the taxation without representation trap as you call it. They do so without even living in the country tacxing them. I worked on and off for 15 years in Norway and paid Norwegian taxes. But there was no way in a million years Norway was going to let me vote in their elections. Nor did I expect them to. I was there to do a job and then go home. Even if I kept going back for 15 years.
Although you and I are diametrically opposed politically I read your views with interest. I am surprised you are so alarmed by a discussion about the extension of the franchise, which let's face it is as we speak no more than a discussion, yet seen relatively comfortable with ID cards introduced in order to facilitate what has now been busted as a cast iron voter suppression attempt. I am surprised
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
This is so true and in some respects it puts native English speakers at a disadvantage, especially non-Americans (because it is a limited vocabulary version of American English that is the global lingua franca). British English in particular has a lot of ideosyncratic phrases that are extremely confusing to Global Bad English speakers. And try speaking to a Global Bad English speaker in a regional accent.
It's much easier for a native English speaker to speak an internationally understandable English, than it is for a non-native speaker. So long as the native speaker isn't so arrogant as to not bother to make sure their listeners can understand what they are saying.
Yes, for sure. Sometimes though you don't realise how unknown some parts of British English are until you've used one of them and are faced with a roomful of blank looks. It takes some time to learn how to speak Gobal Bad English.
That's true, but hopefully less time if you already speak British English of whatever variety, than if you start off only speaking Chinese!
If this is the sort of thing Labour tries to pull in opposition, what do you think they'll do in Government?
They could try to pull a massive voter suppression scheme I suppose, as JRM has just confirmed the Tories have recently embarked upon.
He really is a prize pillock. Presumably he thought in some sort of 4D chess way it'll help precipitate Bozzageddon mk. 2 prior to next year's election, so he can stand on a dream ticket with Spaffer and Nads.
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
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.
Yes, falling birth rates in the West have long been a preoccupation of the US hard-Right. I don't know if the reason they give for this concern - Christian white folk being outbred by the Muslims - was made explicit on this occasion.
More a case of atheist white folk being outbred by Muslims, Christian evangelicals also have lots of children and Catholics used to have more too
Dear, oh Lord!
Atheists, go forth and multiply.
Outside of a few small groups (like Ultra Orthodox Jews) there is bugger all correlation between religiosity and TFR.
Italy, for example, is way more religious than the UK (73% say religion is important vs 25% in the UK), and yet has a much worse TFR.
The nationalist Tory right currently planning for a decade in opposition in the full glare of publicity really is quite a thing, isn't it? Who on earth inside the Tory party is in a position to stop them, though?
Not necessarily guaranteed the Nationalist right will be in opposition for ten years is it? Look who has won the most recent elections for the right in the western world. Trump, Meloni, Johnson, Morrison, Netanyahu and Le Pen got closer than many expected in 2022. In Sweden and Finland and Austria too the centre right only won with the support of a Nationalist right party.
Indeed since Trump won in 2016 only in Greece and Ireland have mainstream parties of the centre right in the West won a general election outright on a non Nationalist platform and in Ireland that was technically a coalition of FF and FG with SF winning most votes and seats
There is no viable Nationalist Right other than the Tories in the UK. Nor will there be, at least until the Tories are thoroughly broken. And the rogues gallery you listed of Nationalist right leaders are only in that position because of decades of building support so that they were ready to take advantage of circumstance - with the possible exception of Trump but even he relied upon decades old organsiations and movements on the fringes of politcis.
The UK doesn't really do Nationalist right. Just as it doesn't really do true solcialist left. And I for one am content with that.
For now. With PR RefUK would win 50-100 seats. Remember in 2015 even under FPTP UKIP got 13%.
Having said that a new Corbynite Left Party would also win 50-100 seats under PR.
The UK only doesn't really do nationalist right and socialist left (with the brief exceptions of Johnson and Corbyn becoming Tory and Labour leaders) due to FPTP. Under PR a sixth to a third of MPs+ would always be from the Nationalist right or socialist left
It's much smaller than the one in BC, but has a fascinating history, and an interesting relationship with Portland, Oregon, across the Columbia. Washington has no state income tax; Oregon has no state sales tax, so, in principle, one could avoid both taxes by working in Vancouver, and shopping in Portland. And, no doubt some do just that, but I have never seen estimates on how big the effect is.
(I believe, in theory one is supposed to pay sales tax on goods brought into Washington from Oregon, but don't think that is enforced other than for expensive items like new cars.)
maxh - A few years ago, I read about a heart medicine -- that was being used (off label) by a few symphony musicians because if kept them calm during performances. It's been a while, so I can't think of the name of the medicine.
I should add that the article where I read about this medicine wasn't entirely sympthetic. (It was probably in the NYT.)
Beta blockers ? Also once used by snooker players.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
Yeah this is precisely where I am. There are a lot of people out there who perhaps have never lived overseas and don't have recent immigrant experience in their family history. But we live in a world of growing international mobility, and I think that democracies have to show some flexibility in terms of the franchise to ensure that fewer people fall into the taxation without representation trap simply because of the complexities of often competing citizenship frameworks. People also really need to break out of this mindset that somehow migration is inherently bad or threatening. The fact that even a child of immigrants like Suella Braverman can adopt this line of reasoning just illustrates what a strangely seductive mindset it is.
Migration is certainly not bad or threatening. But when migrants settle somewhere they should take citizenship of the country in which they settle. At least if they want to take part in the democratic process of that country.
And millions of people fall into the taxation without representation trap as you call it. They do so without even living in the country tacxing them. I worked on and off for 15 years in Norway and paid Norwegian taxes. But there was no way in a million years Norway was going to let me vote in their elections. Nor did I expect them to. I was there to do a job and then go home. Even if I kept going back for 15 years.
Although you and I are diametrically opposed politically I read your views with interest. I am surprised you are so alarmed by a discussion about the extension of the franchise, which let's face it is as we speak no more than a discussion, yet seen relatively comfortable with ID cards introduced in order to facilitate what has now been busted as a cast iron voter suppression attempt. I am surprised
No you have me wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ID cards for voting (and indeed ID cards in any form that demands presentation to the authorities). I posted at length about it in the run up to the locals. It was a clear what the reasons were for it and that it was an abuse of power.
I can only think of one example where a party successfully managed to rig the deck, and that was Labour to devolution in Wales.
I can't think of any other examples?
I don't think PR would do it either. I think far too many Labour/Lib Dem establishment types think it would lock them in power forever, but it might just as easily open Pandora's Box.
Look, Luckyguy is allowed to justify being a tit man any way he needs to. Can breast milk be turned into ice cream?
It is often turned into ice cream, it's just usually cow's breast milk.
Albeit they do add lots of sugar to it.
I'm confused - the suggestion earlier that breast milk contains relatively little in the way of straight sugar (and implying that much of the carbohydrate in it isn't stdraight sugar) when in fact any soluble mono- or di-saccharide IS a sugar.
Unless the milk contains starches etc., in which case it'd be more like sweet wallpaper paste? What am I missing?
Worrying Carnyx , you seem very au fait with cows udders
The specialty of oldest restaurant in Berlin, Zur Letzten Instanz, is stuffed cow udder. I did not partake.
Nigelb - Beta blockers sounds right, but I would advise anyone thinking about using them off label to do some serious research, rather than relying on my hazy memory.
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
Also attempted to cancel Jim Bob of Carter USM fame.
I can only think of one example where a party successfully managed to rig the deck, and that was Labour to devolution in Wales.
I can't think of any other examples?
I don't think PR would do it either. I think far too many Labour/Lib Dem establishment types think it would lock them in power forever, but it might just as easily open Pandora's Box.
I can only think of one example where a party successfully managed to rig the deck, and that was Labour to devolution in Wales.
I can't think of any other examples?
I don't think PR would do it either. I think far too many Labour/Lib Dem establishment types think it would lock them in power forever, but it might just as easily open Pandora's Box.
The nationalist Tory right currently planning for a decade in opposition in the full glare of publicity really is quite a thing, isn't it? Who on earth inside the Tory party is in a position to stop them, though?
Not necessarily guaranteed the Nationalist right will be in opposition for ten years is it? Look who has won the most recent elections for the right in the western world. Trump, Meloni, Johnson, Morrison, Netanyahu and Le Pen got closer than many expected in 2022. In Sweden and Finland and Austria too the centre right only won with the support of a Nationalist right party.
Indeed since Trump won in 2016 only in Greece and Ireland have mainstream parties of the centre right in the West won a general election outright on a non Nationalist platform and in Ireland that was technically a coalition of FF and FG with SF winning most votes and seats
There is no viable Nationalist Right other than the Tories in the UK. Nor will there be, at least until the Tories are thoroughly broken. And the rogues gallery you listed of Nationalist right leaders are only in that position because of decades of building support so that they were ready to take advantage of circumstance - with the possible exception of Trump but even he relied upon decades old organsiations and movements on the fringes of politcis.
The UK doesn't really do Nationalist right. Just as it doesn't really do true solcialist left. And I for one am content with that.
For now. With PR RefUK would win 50-100 seats. Remember in 2015 even under FPTP UKIP got 13%.
Having said that a new Corbynite Left Party would also win 50-100 seats under PR.
The UK only doesn't really do nationalist right and socialist left (with the brief exceptions of Johnson and Corbyn becoming Tory and Labour leaders) due to FPTP. Under PR a sixth to a third of MPs+ would always be from the Nationalist right or socialist left
In 2015, under PR, the Tories + UKIP had an absolute majority of the vote, and so that's the Government we would have got.
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
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.
Yes, falling birth rates in the West have long been a preoccupation of the US hard-Right. I don't know if the reason they give for this concern - Christian white folk being outbred by the Muslims - was made explicit on this occasion.
More a case of atheist white folk being outbred by Muslims, Christian evangelicals also have lots of children and Catholics used to have more too
Dear, oh Lord!
Atheists, go forth and multiply.
Outside of a few small groups (like Ultra Orthodox Jews) there is bugger all correlation between religiosity and TFR.
Italy, for example, is way more religious than the UK (73% say religion is important vs 25% in the UK), and yet has a much worse TFR.
In Italy the most religious are pensioners, so obviously irrelevant to birthrate. The point is only relevant to those aged 16-45
So, those religious pensioners gave birth to non religious folk*?
* While younger, obviously
'Data from around 34,000 people between the ages of 18 and 45 from eight European countries – Austria, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, Russia, Bulgaria, and Georgia – were evaluated in this longitudinal study..Religion still plays a central role in family planning today, as the results suggest. "Our study confirms that practicing Christians, i.e., those who regularly attend church services, want and actually have more children than nominal Christians and non-religious people," says OeAW demographer Isabella Buber-Ennser.
An example of this: in Austria, practicing Christians between the ages of 20 and 29 stated that they would like two to three children. The 35- to 44-year-old practicing Christian women then had an average of two children (1.8). In comparison, for women without a religion, the desired number of children in the age group 20 to 29 was two children (1.9) and the age group 35 to 44 then only had one child (0.9).
Although the data differ from country to country, the general trend is similar: in the eight countries examined, practicing Christian women in the 20 to 29 age group want an average of 2.5 children, and the 35- to 44-year-olds have an average of two. On the other hand, those who do not have a denomination only want two children and have an average of 1.5 children.' https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/news/religious-people-have-more-children
“In the past 15 years there has been an increasing effort to explain the evolution of religiousness,” said Janko Međedović, writing in the Journal of Biosocial Science..He looked at 461 parents of psychology students at Singidunum University in the Serbian capital, Belgrade, and asked them how many children they had and also how many they had planned to have when they were young adults.
The more religious the parents were the more children they originally desired and the more they ended up having — and the effect was particularly marked among men. In 2016, a review of census data from almost 4 million women in 32 countries found that those who were religious were less likely to be childless.' https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/religious-belief-makes-you-have-more-children-gttxqqxvx
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
Yeah this is precisely where I am. There are a lot of people out there who perhaps have never lived overseas and don't have recent immigrant experience in their family history. But we live in a world of growing international mobility, and I think that democracies have to show some flexibility in terms of the franchise to ensure that fewer people fall into the taxation without representation trap simply because of the complexities of often competing citizenship frameworks. People also really need to break out of this mindset that somehow migration is inherently bad or threatening. The fact that even a child of immigrants like Suella Braverman can adopt this line of reasoning just illustrates what a strangely seductive mindset it is.
Migration is certainly not bad or threatening. But when migrants settle somewhere they should take citizenship of the country in which they settle. At least if they want to take part in the democratic process of that country.
And millions of people fall into the taxation without representation trap as you call it. They do so without even living in the country tacxing them. I worked on and off for 15 years in Norway and paid Norwegian taxes. But there was no way in a million years Norway was going to let me vote in their elections. Nor did I expect them to. I was there to do a job and then go home. Even if I kept going back for 15 years.
I understand your position and respect it. It is clean and consistent and is the norm internationally. I just don't think it captures the complexity of people's lives and ends up disenfranchising internationally mobile people. Perhaps that's what people have signed up to in making that choice, but I think it is unfortunate that that's what happens, and I think it's possible to be a bit more flexible about the franchise in response.
I can only think of one example where a party successfully managed to rig the deck, and that was Labour to devolution in Wales.
I can't think of any other examples?
I don't think PR would do it either. I think far too many Labour/Lib Dem establishment types think it would lock them in power forever, but it might just as easily open Pandora's Box.
"establishment types"
It's not unreasonable to suggest that PR might lead to an Alternative-for-Bolsover type of group and a Neo-Respect - both of which would draw at least some support from traditional Labour blocks.
The nationalist Tory right currently planning for a decade in opposition in the full glare of publicity really is quite a thing, isn't it? Who on earth inside the Tory party is in a position to stop them, though?
Not necessarily guaranteed the Nationalist right will be in opposition for ten years is it? Look who has won the most recent elections for the right in the western world. Trump, Meloni, Johnson, Morrison, Netanyahu and Le Pen got closer than many expected in 2022. In Sweden and Finland and Austria too the centre right only won with the support of a Nationalist right party.
Indeed since Trump won in 2016 only in Greece and Ireland have mainstream parties of the centre right in the West won a general election outright on a non Nationalist platform and in Ireland that was technically a coalition of FF and FG with SF winning most votes and seats
There is no viable Nationalist Right other than the Tories in the UK. Nor will there be, at least until the Tories are thoroughly broken. And the rogues gallery you listed of Nationalist right leaders are only in that position because of decades of building support so that they were ready to take advantage of circumstance - with the possible exception of Trump but even he relied upon decades old organsiations and movements on the fringes of politcis.
The UK doesn't really do Nationalist right. Just as it doesn't really do true solcialist left. And I for one am content with that.
For now. With PR RefUK would win 50-100 seats. Remember in 2015 even under FPTP UKIP got 13%.
Having said that a new Corbynite Left Party would also win 50-100 seats under PR.
The UK only doesn't really do nationalist right and socialist left (with the brief exceptions of Johnson and Corbyn becoming Tory and Labour leaders) due to FPTP. Under PR a sixth to a third of MPs+ would always be from the Nationalist right or socialist left
In 2015, under PR, the Tories + UKIP had an absolute majority of the vote, and so that's the Government we would have got.
Yes with Farage maybe replacing Clegg as Deputy PM and Boris becoming PM 4 years earlier as a price of Farage's support
Mogg's admission today has to be very serious for the government. Let's see what Starmer can do with it.
Sigh. What's he done now?
Claimed that the aim of the Voter ID legislation was to suppress opposition votes and bemoaning the fact that it backfired and had more effect on Tory votes.
Also attempted to cancel Jim Bob of Carter USM fame.
Which would make it Carter the Stoppable Sex Machine... 😀
I can only think of one example where a party successfully managed to rig the deck, and that was Labour to devolution in Wales.
I can't think of any other examples?
I don't think PR would do it either. I think far too many Labour/Lib Dem establishment types think it would lock them in power forever, but it might just as easily open Pandora's Box.
Maybe some people actually believe in PR. It was wrong UKIP had virtually no Westminster representation. It is unhealthy to have politics so dominated by two parties, especially nowadays when they are both very vulnerable to weird entryists.
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
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.
Yes, falling birth rates in the West have long been a preoccupation of the US hard-Right. I don't know if the reason they give for this concern - Christian white folk being outbred by the Muslims - was made explicit on this occasion.
More a case of atheist white folk being outbred by Muslims, Christian evangelicals also have lots of children and Catholics used to have more too
Dear, oh Lord!
Atheists, go forth and multiply.
Outside of a few small groups (like Ultra Orthodox Jews) there is bugger all correlation between religiosity and TFR.
Italy, for example, is way more religious than the UK (73% say religion is important vs 25% in the UK), and yet has a much worse TFR.
I can only think of one example where a party successfully managed to rig the deck, and that was Labour to devolution in Wales.
I can't think of any other examples?
I don't think PR would do it either. I think far too many Labour/Lib Dem establishment types think it would lock them in power forever, but it might just as easily open Pandora's Box.
"establishment types"
It's not unreasonable to suggest that PR might lead to an Alternative-for-Bolsover type of group and a Neo-Respect - both of which would draw at least some support from traditional Labour blocks.
Sure, let the big parties fragment. I'm just wondering to what extent you can call a party that hasn't led a government for 13 years, and another party that hasn't led a government for a hundred years, "establishment types".
The nationalist Tory right currently planning for a decade in opposition in the full glare of publicity really is quite a thing, isn't it? Who on earth inside the Tory party is in a position to stop them, though?
Not necessarily guaranteed the Nationalist right will be in opposition for ten years is it? Look who has won the most recent elections for the right in the western world. Trump, Meloni, Johnson, Morrison, Netanyahu and Le Pen got closer than many expected in 2022. In Sweden and Finland and Austria too the centre right only won with the support of a Nationalist right party.
Indeed since Trump won in 2016 only in Greece and Ireland have mainstream parties of the centre right in the West won a general election outright on a non Nationalist platform and in Ireland that was technically a coalition of FF and FG with SF winning most votes and seats
There is no viable Nationalist Right other than the Tories in the UK. Nor will there be, at least until the Tories are thoroughly broken. And the rogues gallery you listed of Nationalist right leaders are only in that position because of decades of building support so that they were ready to take advantage of circumstance - with the possible exception of Trump but even he relied upon decades old organsiations and movements on the fringes of politcis.
The UK doesn't really do Nationalist right. Just as it doesn't really do true solcialist left. And I for one am content with that.
For now. With PR RefUK would win 50-100 seats. Remember in 2015 even under FPTP UKIP got 13%.
Having said that a new Corbynite Left Party would also win 50-100 seats under PR.
The UK only doesn't really do nationalist right and socialist left (with the brief exceptions of Johnson and Corbyn becoming Tory and Labour leaders) due to FPTP. Under PR a sixth to a third of MPs+ would always be from the Nationalist right or socialist left
In 2015, under PR, the Tories + UKIP had an absolute majority of the vote, and so that's the Government we would have got.
Well, if that looked likely in the run-up to the election it might have pushed some centrist Tori voters into voting Lib Dem instead.
It's a mistake to read across vote shares from our FPTP GEs and predict PR election results on that basis. I know the Electoral Reform Society do that for every GE and I tend to think - what's the point?
The greatest advantage of a non-FPTP system is precisely that it gives voters better choices then they have with FPTP, and so I'd hope that voters would use those choices to vote differently (though I'm not naive enough to think that they'd vote in a way that made me happy, given that one of my local TDs in Ireland is a complete bell-end by the name of Michael Collins).
I can only think of one example where a party successfully managed to rig the deck, and that was Labour to devolution in Wales.
I can't think of any other examples?
I don't think PR would do it either. I think far too many Labour/Lib Dem establishment types think it would lock them in power forever, but it might just as easily open Pandora's Box.
"establishment types"
It's not unreasonable to suggest that PR might lead to an Alternative-for-Bolsover type of group and a Neo-Respect - both of which would draw at least some support from traditional Labour blocks.
Sure, let the big parties fragment. I'm just wondering to what extent you can call a party that hasn't led a government for 13 years, and another party that hasn't led a government for a hundred years, "establishment types".
It doesn't get much more establishment than being a member of the privy council.
maxh - A few years ago, I read about a heart medicine -- that was being used (off label) by a few symphony musicians because if kept them calm during performances. It's been a while, so I can't think of the name of the medicine.
I should add that the article where I read about this medicine wasn't entirely sympthetic. (It was probably in the NYT.)
Beta blockers ? Also once used by snooker players.
Back in the mists of time I ran a citizens assembly on recreational drug use, and was surprised that part of the discussion was about performance enhancing drugs in schools and universities.
As I recall they were quite experimental drugs and I think there was rightly a much more vociferous reaction against their use in young people than against most recreational drugs.
Since then I have never come across a case of them actually being used, though. Perhaps at uni?
In any case, if our solution to any problem is to encourage a teenager to take experimental drugs I think we’re probably asking the wrong questions!
What training does Braverman believe is required in order to pick fruit? Another Tory with no idea of the real word.
All such jobs usually do require training as the are rarely so easy as they might seem. A lifetime ago I emptied dustbins - tough work and the training was a lifesaver. Maybe you need some idea about the real world yourself?
I can only think of one example where a party successfully managed to rig the deck, and that was Labour to devolution in Wales.
I can't think of any other examples?
I don't think PR would do it either. I think far too many Labour/Lib Dem establishment types think it would lock them in power forever, but it might just as easily open Pandora's Box.
"establishment types"
It's not unreasonable to suggest that PR might lead to an Alternative-for-Bolsover type of group and a Neo-Respect - both of which would draw at least some support from traditional Labour blocks.
Sure, let the big parties fragment. I'm just wondering to what extent you can call a party that hasn't led a government for 13 years, and another party that hasn't led a government for a hundred years, "establishment types".
It doesn't get much more establishment than being a member of the privy council.
Right, ok then, so everybody is the establishment. Nadine Dorries, Angela Rayner, everyone. I guess Sinn Fein are the only ones to vote for if you don't like that.
Re Starmer's proposals on EU citizens, I do believe that anyone living here with settled status and paying tax should be entitled to vote
However, I also believe that this is a mistep by Starmer as well as his proposals for votes for 16 and 17 year olds
In the next fortnight the UK immigration figures for this year are due out and reportedly will be near one million, no doubt largely from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan which is a huge number
Braverman ( no I do not like her) in a speech today apparently attacked this level of immigration and also Starmer
The red wall and others will not be impressed with this high level of immigration, and add into the mix that Starmer is wanting to give votes to upto 5 million EU citizens then you can see a big row over immigration on the horizon
Again I have to ask why you believe that we should be the one exception amongst first world countries in allowing non citizens to vote in our national elections? In fact we should be moving the other way and removing the franchise from the anomolies (Commonwealth and Irish citizens)
Whether or not other countries do the same thing is strictly irrelevant. Sometimes (just sometimes) everyone else is wrong about something. The task is to decide on the merits of the case.
But in this case they are not wrong and the reasons are clear. If someone is unwilling to take citizenship (and I would accept we need to make that a lot cheaper) then they are not making a commitment to the country. So why should they be able to vote on its future? Every other developed country seems to recognise this. I have yet to see any cogent argument against it.
The counterargument is as I have stated downthread: that there are coherent reasons why you might want to preserve your foreign passport despite having made your life in this country. Not just the cost, but also the basis of being concerned about having the flexibility to visit family abroad at short notice without having to apply for a visa. Taking British citizenship can result in losing your other passport. We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
Why are you so concerned with people potentially losing their other passport if you don't think a passport should confer any special rights?
People need passports and, in some cases, visas or visa waivers to travel. If they have family in their birth country, they may be in a situation where they want to visit at short notice. That's a normal part of life, with ageing parents, siblings having children, friends' weddings etc. For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
Yeah this is precisely where I am. There are a lot of people out there who perhaps have never lived overseas and don't have recent immigrant experience in their family history. But we live in a world of growing international mobility, and I think that democracies have to show some flexibility in terms of the franchise to ensure that fewer people fall into the taxation without representation trap simply because of the complexities of often competing citizenship frameworks. People also really need to break out of this mindset that somehow migration is inherently bad or threatening. The fact that even a child of immigrants like Suella Braverman can adopt this line of reasoning just illustrates what a strangely seductive mindset it is.
The issue isn’t migration as such (apart from a small group). The issue is competition for scarce resources.
Ordinary people saw wages held down, it was harder to get into local schools, the impossibility of GP appointments, council house waiting lists etc
They not unreasonably made the connection between more people demanding services = more scarcity
If governments had appropriately expanded *capacity* (not just increased spending) in public services then I think people would be more relaxed about immigration
By the way, this is the first time in human history that we have in Lingua Franca that is not just for the elites. For the first time in human history, we have a global Lingua Franca that transcends societal layers. Thanks to the internet, thanks to other developments, thanks to the predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture, English is an instrument for all. And this is the first time, in human history, that we have a true Lingua Franca for all: bad English.
This is so true and in some respects it puts native English speakers at a disadvantage, especially non-Americans (because it is a limited vocabulary version of American English that is the global lingua franca). British English in particular has a lot of ideosyncratic phrases that are extremely confusing to Global Bad English speakers. And try speaking to a Global Bad English speaker in a regional accent.
I would argue - though I am aware this is not what the article meant! - that the UK leads the world in Bad English. Specifically, today, people who say 'them' when they mean 'those'. Including the head of HR at our place. Ugh.
If I ever get convicted for murder it will be because someone has said "yourself" to me when they mean "you".
What training does Braverman believe is required in order to pick fruit? Another Tory with no idea of the real word.
All such jobs usually do require training as the are rarely so easy as they might seem. A lifetime ago I emptied dustbins - tough work and the training was a lifesaver. Maybe you need some idea about the real world yourself?
On the job training you can do on your first morning on the job. How is that a barrier to recruitment?
Comments
Rees-Mogg...he's a bit dim isn't he.
Most Eastern Europeans are very far from socialist and quite socially conservative.
Maybe both sides should stop these futile attempts to rig the deck, and just focus on good policy and government?
We want the same thing: people who are allowed to vote should be the ones who have a stake in this country. I think your attitude towards those who live here but do not take citizenship is a little too unforgiving, possibly even a little paranoid about their motives. The passport is no reliable indicator of loyalty, the long pattern of living an sensible, ordinary life somewhere is a much better indicator in my view.
" “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections."
I'd almost prefer Congress. In fact, I probably would.
ELON MUSK IN FRANCE: TESLA WILL MAKE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS IN FRANCE AT SOME POINT
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1658137003286753281
Which will sooo make the world a better place…. 😂😂
Although this sort of chat is why I did science and not languages at school.
Just look at the justifiable criticism of those who voted for Brexit and are now taking advantage of their alternative nationality to bugger off elsewhere. Now as you know I don't think Brexit has been bad for the UK but clearly they do and are running away based on that perception.
Or the alternative. In a decade we have another EU referendum and the 6 million or so EU citizens who are being referenced by the Guardian are able to vote. Many of them are here to work but then plan to retire back to their own countries. Should they be able to decide the future of a country which they do not consider they have a future in?
For some people, taking a British passport might complicate that and so they might decide it's better to keep hold of their other passport.
I simply think that such a decision shouldn't be a bar to voting in the country where you live. I mean really, if you've got a long term job, 2 kids in the school, a gym membership, and you're running the local parkrun each weekend, are you really someone with no stake in this society?
Specifically, today, people who say 'them' when they mean 'those'. Including the head of HR at our place. Ugh.
We see this in revealing statements like this, his belated backing of TM's original Brexit deal on the basis it was "half a loaf", his recognition that changing leader again before the next GE would be suicide and, also, his popularity with left-wing female MPs, like Mhairi Black and Jess Phillips, which never ceases to knock me off my chair.
I also wholeheartedly share the disinclination towards high responsibility low stimulation jobs that you mention!
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1658113024568246275?cxt=HHwWhoC2rdjA5oIuAAAA
If I had moved to Spain back when Gordon Brown was PM, I might still be eligible to vote in the next election.
We have to have a test that says this person has a stake in this country, this other person doesn't. On this we agree. I say let people put their money where their mouth is. You vote where you live. I'm entirely comfortable with EU citizens voting without any reference to whether their vote will work with or against mine (fuck knows who I'm going to vote for next time anyway). If they've been living here for a period of time.
People also really need to break out of this mindset that somehow migration is inherently bad or threatening. The fact that even a child of immigrants like Suella Braverman can adopt this line of reasoning just illustrates what a strangely seductive mindset it is.
This is a coherent set of rules and is what works in practically every other country.
In reality, I got a solid 2:1 but I had to work for it and some sort of guilt about that set in afterwards, possibly coupled with the fact I forgot most of the equations/theory at a conscious level, whilst still retaining them at a sub-conscious level.
Indeed since Trump won in 2016 only in Greece and Ireland have mainstream parties of the centre right in the West won a general election outright on a non Nationalist platform and in Ireland that was technically a coalition of FF and FG with SF winning most votes and seats
I don't think intentions is a realistic test though. You can't ask everyone where they see themselves in five years' time as a basis for enfranchisement, so you have to use something else. You say passport, I say residency in the years immediately prior. I don't think either option is unreasonable but I do think "my" way is better.
In the end, I think more democracy is better than less. Getting people involved in the political process helps people become better citizens. People often talk about integration... well, what better way than asking people to speak up for how they think their communities should be run?
And millions of people fall into the taxation without representation trap as you call it. They do so without even living in the country tacxing them. I worked on and off for 15 years in Norway and paid Norwegian taxes. But there was no way in a million years Norway was going to let me vote in their elections. Nor did I expect them to. I was there to do a job and then go home. Even if I kept going back for 15 years.
I do think that your residency requirement actually already puts you half way to my position. You might not be willing to cross the other half, and that's fine. Since neither of us really have any logical flaws in our positions, I think we're just at a point where we have to agree to disagree.
I should add that the article where I read about this medicine wasn't entirely sympthetic. (It was probably in the NYT.)
A knock on consequence of this is that the new immigrants can vote in UK general elections whereas the EU immigrants mainly could not.
Which party will benefit from this?
https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/news/religious-people-have-more-children
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/religious-belief-makes-you-have-more-children-gttxqqxvx
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/gods-little-rabbits-religious-people-out-reproduce-secular-ones-by-a-landslide/
In Italy the most religious are pensioners, so obviously irrelevant to birthrate. The point is only relevant to those aged 16-45
The madder end of the Cabinet all seem to be railing against an establishment that is... themselves. It is really weird.
The UK doesn't really do Nationalist right. Just as it doesn't really do true solcialist left. And I for one am content with that.
* While younger, obviously
Having said that a new Corbynite Left Party would also win 50-100 seats under PR.
The UK only doesn't really do nationalist right and socialist left (with the brief exceptions of Johnson and Corbyn becoming Tory and Labour leaders) due to FPTP. Under PR a sixth to a third of MPs+ would always be from the Nationalist right or socialist left
It's much smaller than the one in BC, but has a fascinating history, and an interesting relationship with Portland, Oregon, across the Columbia. Washington has no state income tax; Oregon has no state sales tax, so, in principle, one could avoid both taxes by working in Vancouver, and shopping in Portland. And, no doubt some do just that, but I have never seen estimates on how big the effect is.
(I believe, in theory one is supposed to pay sales tax on goods brought into Washington from Oregon, but don't think that is enforced other than for expensive items like new cars.)
Also once used by snooker players.
I can't think of any other examples?
I don't think PR would do it either. I think far too many Labour/Lib Dem establishment types think it would lock them in power forever, but it might just as easily open Pandora's Box.
I can't think of any other examples?
I don't think PR would do it either. I think far too many Labour/Lib Dem establishment types think it would lock them in power forever, but it might just as easily open Pandora's Box.
An example of this: in Austria, practicing Christians between the ages of 20 and 29 stated that they would like two to three children. The 35- to 44-year-old practicing Christian women then had an average of two children (1.8). In comparison, for women without a religion, the desired number of children in the age group 20 to 29 was two children (1.9) and the age group 35 to 44 then only had one child (0.9).
Although the data differ from country to country, the general trend is similar: in the eight countries examined, practicing Christian women in the 20 to 29 age group want an average of 2.5 children, and the 35- to 44-year-olds have an average of two. On the other hand, those who do not have a denomination only want two children and have an average of 1.5 children.'
https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/news/religious-people-have-more-children
“In the past 15 years there has been an increasing effort to explain the evolution of religiousness,” said Janko Međedović, writing in the Journal of Biosocial Science..He looked at 461 parents of psychology students at Singidunum University in the Serbian capital, Belgrade, and asked them how many children they had and also how many they had planned to have when they were young adults.
The more religious the parents were the more children they originally desired and the more they ended up having — and the effect was particularly marked among men. In 2016, a review of census data from almost 4 million women in 32 countries found that those who were religious were less likely to be childless.'
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/religious-belief-makes-you-have-more-children-gttxqqxvx
'Even flailing religious denominations placing their emphasis on converting outsiders, such as Yehova’s witnesses, are out-reproducing nonreligious mothers. Hindus (2.79 births per woman), Muslims (2.44), and Jews (2.06), meanwhile, are prolific producers of human beings. Nonreligious Swiss mothers bear a measly 1.11 children.'
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/gods-little-rabbits-religious-people-out-reproduce-secular-ones-by-a-landslide/
Mr Rees-Mogg was moments into his speech when a protester warned of 'facism' before being hauled off stage by security."
https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-protester-storms-stage-during-speech-to-warn-of-fascism-12881437
I'm just wondering to what extent you can call a party that hasn't led a government for 13 years, and another party that hasn't led a government for a hundred years, "establishment types".
Braverman less quick with any riposte as her protestors were booed and carried out of the hall
It's a mistake to read across vote shares from our FPTP GEs and predict PR election results on that basis. I know the Electoral Reform Society do that for every GE and I tend to think - what's the point?
The greatest advantage of a non-FPTP system is precisely that it gives voters better choices then they have with FPTP, and so I'd hope that voters would use those choices to vote differently (though I'm not naive enough to think that they'd vote in a way that made me happy, given that one of my local TDs in Ireland is a complete bell-end by the name of Michael Collins).
There is only one Conservative I fear fighting against at the next General Election and his name is Boris Johnson.
The guy is a shit but that's part of the point.
Anyone other than him, it's a Labour landslide.
As I recall they were quite experimental drugs and I think there was rightly a much more vociferous reaction against their use in young people than against most
recreational drugs.
Since then I have never come across a case of them actually being used, though. Perhaps at uni?
In any case, if our solution to any problem is to encourage a teenager to take experimental drugs I think we’re probably asking the wrong questions!
Ordinary people saw wages held down, it was harder to get into local schools, the impossibility of GP appointments, council house waiting lists etc
They not unreasonably made the connection between more people demanding services = more scarcity
If governments had appropriately expanded *capacity* (not just increased spending) in public services then I think people would be more relaxed about immigration