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
We're talking about the franchise. It's not like there's a limited supply of ballot papers. We could afford the extra pencils needed for marking your ballot even if we allowed every adult to vote. Immigration and infrastructure are really quite tangential issues to the subject here. Even if you stopped all immigration now, we'd still have this gap where people already here living settled, sensible, boring lives are not allowed to vote. That's the question here, not scarcity in public services.
TL;DR - even if we dealt with all the myriad problems with the underfunding of our education system, it would still entrench disadvantage - here's how.
I am lucky enough to run a mentoring system for kids in school who have been through the foster system. They're awesome, and the programme transforms lives. But some of them still fail exams unnecessarily.
I had my final mentoring session with one student before his first maths exam on Friday. He could answer almost every question confidently on the foundation paper, and without a doubt deserves a grade 5. He has a fantastic work ethic and would make a good apprentice engineer.
But he will almost certainly fail maths. Not because he doesn't know things, but because he has experienced sufficient early childhood trauma that when he feels stress his body floods with adrenalin and his brain goes into primate mode.
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.
Thanks for the work you do - it is vital.
But life produces such stresses and strains. A differing anecdote: one of the calmest, nicest people I know was adopted. He is calm and doesn't get flustered by anything, and has done well in life. His adopted sister (from a different birth mother and father), is... less so. Same adoptive parents, different starts in life.
I had a lot going on in my life when I was going through GCSE and A levels. I did well at my GCSEs, and horribly at my A-levels. That was my responsibility, not my circumstances - especially as I was in a worse state during my GCSE's than me A-levels...
People are different. I am against qualifications being purely exam-based, but ability to perform under a little pressure is vital as well.
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.
Scottish Parliament, albeit Labour + LDs in collusion (for an everlasting coalition).
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK · 39m 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is sixteen points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 29% (+1) Lab 45% (-2) Lib Dem 12% (+3) Other 15% (-1) Fieldwork: 12th - 15th May 2023 Sample: 1,511 GB adults (Changes from 5th-9th May 2023)
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".
How about “you yourself”?
Not as bad as just “yourself”, which is a clumsy attempt at formality and also a little servile. Hate it.
“Them” for those isn’t so bad because it is, I think, genuine dialect.
As for Haitch though. Particular beloved of Haitch R managers.
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.
Scottish Parliament, albeit Labour + LDs in collusion (for an everlasting coalition).
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.
Scottish Parliament, albeit Labour + LDs in collusion (for an everlasting coalition).
How'd that work out for them?
Pretty well to begin with. And who knows what will happen in the future?
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK · 39m 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is sixteen points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 29% (+1) Lab 45% (-2) Lib Dem 12% (+3) Other 15% (-1) Fieldwork: 12th - 15th May 2023 Sample: 1,511 GB adults (Changes from 5th-9th May 2023)
Bloody annoying how they lump together others making an LLG to RefCon comparison impossible unless you delve into the details. Still it looks like LLG of at least 60 unless the Greens have bombed.
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".
How about “you yourself”?
Not as bad as just “yourself”, which is a clumsy attempt at formality and also a little servile. Hate it.
“Them” for those isn’t so bad because it is, I think, genuine dialect.
As for Haitch though. Particular beloved of Haitch R managers.
Presumably ChatGPT can produce unlimited content in the style of an estate agent.
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".
How about “you yourself”?
Not as bad as just “yourself”, which is a clumsy attempt at formality and also a little servile. Hate it.
“Them” for those isn’t so bad because it is, I think, genuine dialect.
As for Haitch though. Particular beloved of Haitch R managers.
Presumably ChatGPT can produce unlimited content in the style of an estate agent.
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.
I said it with a small "e" - it's a sign of bubble thinking where you think everyone else thinks precisely the same way you do.
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).
That's possible, and of course the opposite is true - UKIP votes might have increased under PR, and not necessarily at the expense of the Tories. Labour could have edged down further.
The point is that right-wing coalitions will emerge just as often as left-wing ones do.
Spent the day hiking on Dartmoor after working the weekend. Bliss.
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.
I have a suspicion Johnson will replace Sunak in the next 12 months if the polls continue to show a 15 to 20 point Labour lead.
The switcheroo is becoming inevitable isn’t it. It’s 2019 all over again.
Even “Labour landslide nailed on” Heathener is now qualifying it with “except if Boris Johnson is leader.”
When all that’s left (the moment will be after Sunak’s damp squib of a party conference) is to press the Black Swan button, of course they will press the button.
The problem Labour and Lib Dem PBers have, quite simply, in their hatred of Boris they don’t understand how or why he appeals. The cold water to chuck in their faces, the hint, is it’s got nothing to do with the real Boris Johnson. It’s to do with how he is imagined. Like Mrs Moore in the passage to India. Or like the anti democracy bloodthirsty psychopath Oliver Cromwell, who people think was a good guy and happy to use the b******* as their avatar. Or people thinking Thomas Moor was the nice bloke in that play.
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.
Scottish Parliament, albeit Labour + LDs in collusion (for an everlasting coalition).
How'd that work out for them?
Pretty well to begin with. And who knows what will happen in the future?
But not now, so I don't think you can describe it as successfully rigging the deck.
FWIW, I like the US attitude towards a fairly maximalist view of free speech, but I agree with her conclusion that the "actual malice" standard could do with re-examining.
So with JRM admitting the voter ID change was a voter suppression thing, I wouldn't be surprised to see the police launch a criminal investigation into Sunak, Johnson et al.
The snivelling little shits that defended this should reflect on their Trumpesque like behaviour.
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK · 39m 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is sixteen points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 29% (+1) Lab 45% (-2) Lib Dem 12% (+3) Other 15% (-1) Fieldwork: 12th - 15th May 2023 Sample: 1,511 GB adults (Changes from 5th-9th May 2023)
Bloody annoying how they lump together others making an LLG to RefCon comparison impossible unless you delve into the details. Still it looks like LLG of at least 60 unless the Greens have bombed.
I'm pretty sure the Greens are against the bomb...
Spent the day hiking on Dartmoor after working the weekend. Bliss.
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.
I have a suspicion Johnson will replace Sunak in the next 12 months if the polls continue to show a 15 to 20 point Labour lead.
The switcheroo is becoming inevitable isn’t it. It’s 2019 all over again.
Even “Labour landslide nailed on” Heathener is now qualifying it with “except if Boris Johnson is leader.”
When all that’s left (the moment will be after Sunak’s damp squib of a party conference) is to press the Black Swan button, of course they will press the button.
The problem Labour and Lib Dem PBers have, quite simply, in their hatred of Boris they don’t understand how or why he appeals. The cold water to chuck in their faces, the hint, is it’s got nothing to do with the real Boris Johnson. It’s to do with how he is imagined. Like Mrs Moore in the passage to India. Or like the anti democracy bloodthirsty psychopath Oliver Cromwell, who people think was a good guy and happy to use the b******* as their avatar. Or people thinking Thomas Moor was the nice bloke in that play.
My dislike of Bozo is that he's a lying crook with less morals than an alley cat on heat.
But I don't think it's worth thinking about him until the Standards committee recommend their punishment and the Tory party is forced to make a painful decision.
So with JRM admitting the voter ID change was a voter suppression thing, I wouldn't be surprised to see the police launch a criminal investigation into Sunak, Johnson et al.
The snivelling little shits that defended this should reflect on their Trumpesque like behaviour.
So with JRM admitting the voter ID change was a voter suppression thing, I wouldn't be surprised to see the police launch a criminal investigation into Sunak, Johnson et al.
The snivelling little shits that defended this should reflect on their Trumpesque like behaviour.
Can we have a big old thread header on this massive scandal please?
This should be enormous but PBers seem more outraged that Starmer has suggested a review to widen voter participation. Maybe it's for party gain, maybe not.
So with JRM admitting the voter ID change was a voter suppression thing, I wouldn't be surprised to see the police launch a criminal investigation into Sunak, Johnson et al.
The snivelling little shits that defended this should reflect on their Trumpesque like behaviour.
Can we have a big old thread header on this massive scandal please?
This should be enormous but PBers seem more outraged that Starmer has suggested a review to widen voter participation. Maybe it's for party gain, maybe not.
I'm sure Mike will publish one, I'm sure the PBers that told Mike he was wrong on this topic will be eager to apologise to him.
TL;DR - even if we dealt with all the myriad problems with the underfunding of our education system, it would still entrench disadvantage - here's how.
I am lucky enough to run a mentoring system for kids in school who have been through the foster system. They're awesome, and the programme transforms lives. But some of them still fail exams unnecessarily.
I had my final mentoring session with one student before his first maths exam on Friday. He could answer almost every question confidently on the foundation paper, and without a doubt deserves a grade 5. He has a fantastic work ethic and would make a good apprentice engineer.
But he will almost certainly fail maths. Not because he doesn't know things, but because he has experienced sufficient early childhood trauma that when he feels stress his body floods with adrenalin and his brain goes into primate mode.
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.
Thanks for the work you do - it is vital.
But life produces such stresses and strains. A differing anecdote: one of the calmest, nicest people I know was adopted. He is calm and doesn't get flustered by anything, and has done well in life. His adopted sister (from a different birth mother and father), is... less so. Same adoptive parents, different starts in life.
I had a lot going on in my life when I was going through GCSE and A levels. I did well at my GCSEs, and horribly at my A-levels. That was my responsibility, not my circumstances - especially as I was in a worse state during my GCSE's than me A-levels...
People are different. I am against qualifications being purely exam-based, but ability to perform under a little pressure is vital as well.
I agree with all you say - and reflecting on your and others' replies I'm not sure my original post was that clear.
It's not that any form of stress causes him to lose the ability to perform. It's the particular form of stress that exams create. He is just an extreme example of what many kids experience - he just says his mind goes blank; he knows that he knows how to e.g. factorise a quadratic, but he can't access that info in the moment.
Of course that is a weakness, but it shouldn't be one that bars him from a whole range of life choices after a set of exams at 16.
On voting rights, I'd say what's in the long-term interests of the Conservative and Labour parties on Commonwealth and EU voters, respectively, is probably precisely the other way round.
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
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".
How about “you yourself”?
Not as bad as just “yourself”, which is a clumsy attempt at formality and also a little servile. Hate it.
“Them” for those isn’t so bad because it is, I think, genuine dialect.
As for Haitch though. Particular beloved of Haitch R managers.
"I had went to them shops, thems were barie but then I had to gan yam to me mam's" is perfectly good English, still to be heard.
England’s selectors have discussed the idea of Ben Stokes opening the batting in the Ashes amid fresh concerns over his fitness to bowl in this summer’s Test matches.
I mean, if you choose to call your conference 'National Conservatism' it does rather echo another 'National ...ism' that isn't quite the best look for Braverman et al. right now.
On voting rights, I'd say what's in the long-term interests of the Conservative and Labour parties on Commonwealth and EU voters, respectively, is probably precisely the other way round.
I'd imagine EU, Commonwealth, or other nationals, who have been here 10 years and paying taxes, who live in constituency X will be pretty closely aligned with the existing electorate of constituency X. So the ones in London might be metropolitan city liberal/lefty types and the ones in Wiltshire more rural and conservative.
It won't change many Westminster seats at all, none is a runner.
If the current miserable excuse for a Prime Minister was doing a half tolerable job, nobody would be discussing it. As he isn't, hope of some sort of intervention springs eternal.
England’s selectors have discussed the idea of Ben Stokes opening the batting in the Ashes amid fresh concerns over his fitness to bowl in this summer’s Test matches.
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
So, those religious pensioners gave birth to non religious folk*?
* While younger, obviously
Quite possibly, as the younger population in Italy is less Roman Catholic than the older population Italy's birthrate too is in decline.
Whatever the results as the studies I showed above demonstrate atheists have a lower birthrate than Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Jews, especially those who actively worship and practice their faith
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
Obviously the Tories are planning to be active the day the migration figures are published - no one has said what the day is, can the government control the timing for Friday afternoon before whitsun holidays? They are obviously going to distract from the bad news with something.
I reckon if they put a plane in the air to Rwanda the day the immigration figures come out, the Tories will go up in the following polls. Imagine the front pages if Braverman can get a plane in the air to Rwanda the day the immigration figures come out.
England’s selectors have discussed the idea of Ben Stokes opening the batting in the Ashes amid fresh concerns over his fitness to bowl in this summer’s Test matches.
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.
Fair enough. My point was clumsy. You have always been David Davis like in your opposition to compulsory ID cards. I meant the requirement for ID in order to vote. You have countered my point clearly and concisely.
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!
As I understand it, Adderall and Ritalin are widely abused in older (15+) kids and university students.
There's also the matter of how Mad Nad, JRM etc. convince 180 odd MPs to no confidence Rishi even if they manage to get enough letters in...
Indeed, short of losing another 1000+ seats at next May's local elections, in which case there would be barely any Tory councillors left, Rishi will lead the Tories into the general election in autumn 2024.
Remember last October 197 Tory MPs nominated Rishi but only 62 MPs nominated Boris, I doubt much has changed since. Only once the membership get a say again if Rishi and Hunt lose the next general election will a more rightwing leader be elected again
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".
How about “you yourself”?
I have already murdered several people for saying 'This moment in time' when they meant 'now'.
There's also the matter of how Mad Nad, JRM etc. convince 180 odd MPs to no confidence Rishi even if they manage to get enough letters in...
Keep on pointing Sunak is a loser.
If the alternative is Boris though...
They are hoping Tory MPs remember 2019 rather than the fact Boris Johnson was ousted for putting a known sexual predator into a position of authority then lying about it.
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".
How about “you yourself”?
I have already murdered several people for saying 'This moment in time' when they meant 'now'.
They deserved it.
Having lived in South Wales for nearly 40 years I have developed a contradictory time related verbal tic. "I'll be along, now in a minute".
TL;DR - even if we dealt with all the myriad problems with the underfunding of our education system, it would still entrench disadvantage - here's how.
I am lucky enough to run a mentoring system for kids in school who have been through the foster system. They're awesome, and the programme transforms lives. But some of them still fail exams unnecessarily.
I had my final mentoring session with one student before his first maths exam on Friday. He could answer almost every question confidently on the foundation paper, and without a doubt deserves a grade 5. He has a fantastic work ethic and would make a good apprentice engineer.
But he will almost certainly fail maths. Not because he doesn't know things, but because he has experienced sufficient early childhood trauma that when he feels stress his body floods with adrenalin and his brain goes into primate mode.
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.
Thanks for the work you do - it is vital.
But life produces such stresses and strains. A differing anecdote: one of the calmest, nicest people I know was adopted. He is calm and doesn't get flustered by anything, and has done well in life. His adopted sister (from a different birth mother and father), is... less so. Same adoptive parents, different starts in life.
I had a lot going on in my life when I was going through GCSE and A levels. I did well at my GCSEs, and horribly at my A-levels. That was my responsibility, not my circumstances - especially as I was in a worse state during my GCSE's than me A-levels...
People are different. I am against qualifications being purely exam-based, but ability to perform under a little pressure is vital as well.
I agree with all you say - and reflecting on your and others' replies I'm not sure my original post was that clear.
It's not that any form of stress causes him to lose the ability to perform. It's the particular form of stress that exams create. He is just an extreme example of what many kids experience - he just says his mind goes blank; he knows that he knows how to e.g. factorise a quadratic, but he can't access that info in the moment.
Of course that is a weakness, but it shouldn't be one that bars him from a whole range of life choices after a set of exams at 16.
IMV there is *one* process that is set to define it; something that suits this gentleman might disadvantage someone more exam-based; someone who performs well under stress, or in that sort of situation.
So with JRM admitting the voter ID change was a voter suppression thing, I wouldn't be surprised to see the police launch a criminal investigation into Sunak, Johnson et al.
The snivelling little shits that defended this should reflect on their Trumpesque like behaviour.
I thought voter ID originated at the Electoral Commission?
Comments
It's not like there's a limited supply of ballot papers. We could afford the extra pencils needed for marking your ballot even if we allowed every adult to vote.
Immigration and infrastructure are really quite tangential issues to the subject here. Even if you stopped all immigration now, we'd still have this gap where people already here living settled, sensible, boring lives are not allowed to vote. That's the question here, not scarcity in public services.
But life produces such stresses and strains. A differing anecdote: one of the calmest, nicest people I know was adopted. He is calm and doesn't get flustered by anything, and has done well in life. His adopted sister (from a different birth mother and father), is... less so. Same adoptive parents, different starts in life.
I had a lot going on in my life when I was going through GCSE and A levels. I did well at my GCSEs, and horribly at my A-levels. That was my responsibility, not my circumstances - especially as I was in a worse state during my GCSE's than me A-levels...
People are different. I am against qualifications being purely exam-based, but ability to perform under a little pressure is vital as well.
@DeltapollUK
·
39m
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
Labour lead is sixteen points in latest results from Deltapoll.
Con 29% (+1)
Lab 45% (-2)
Lib Dem 12% (+3)
Other 15% (-1)
Fieldwork: 12th - 15th May 2023
Sample: 1,511 GB adults
(Changes from 5th-9th May 2023)
“Them” for those isn’t so bad because it is, I think, genuine dialect.
As for Haitch though. Particular beloved of Haitch R managers.
@RedfieldWilton
·
1h
Labour leads by 14%, up two points from last week.
Westminster VI (14 May):
Labour 42% (+1)
Conservative 28% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 11% (-5)
Reform UK 8% (+3)
Green 5% (+1)
SNP 4% (+1)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 7 May
@Beyond_Topline
·
43m
Sunak now at -16 with Deltapoll. Starmer's ratings back to where they were pre-Locals, too.
In-line with Opinium (-19) and Omnisis (-14) who also show Sunak's ratings significantly down.
Meanwhile, R&W have Sunak on, erm, the best ratings he's had this year.
Be careful what you wish for.
https://twitter.com/natcontalk/status/1658134915202834433?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
The point is that right-wing coalitions will emerge just as often as left-wing ones do.
Even “Labour landslide nailed on” Heathener is now qualifying it with “except if Boris Johnson is leader.”
When all that’s left (the moment will be after Sunak’s damp squib of a party conference) is to press the Black Swan button, of course they will press the button.
The problem Labour and Lib Dem PBers have, quite simply, in their hatred of Boris they don’t understand how or why he appeals. The cold water to chuck in their faces, the hint, is it’s got nothing to do with the real Boris Johnson. It’s to do with how he is imagined. Like Mrs Moore in the passage to India. Or like the anti democracy bloodthirsty psychopath Oliver Cromwell, who people think was a good guy and happy to use the b******* as their avatar. Or people thinking Thomas Moor was the nice bloke in that play.
Article in the New Yorker by the fine legal commentator Jeannie Suk Gersen:
My piece on defamation and democracy, in this week's
@NewYorker , asks whether we can do better than NYT v. Sullvan, and better hold liars to account, for the sake of our democracy. https://newyorker.com/magazine/2023/05/22/the-dark-side-of-defamation-law. I know, not a popular opinion among journalists, but hear me out.
https://twitter.com/JeannieSGersen/status/1657508191477825537
FWIW, I like the US attitude towards a fairly maximalist view of free speech, but I agree with her conclusion that the "actual malice" standard could do with re-examining.
The snivelling little shits that defended this should reflect on their Trumpesque like behaviour.
Seriously tempted to drop a big one on that.
But I don't think it's worth thinking about him until the Standards committee recommend their punishment and the Tory party is forced to make a painful decision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_fbASHIMJc
This should be enormous but PBers seem more outraged that Starmer has suggested a review to widen voter participation. Maybe it's for party gain, maybe not.
It's not that any form of stress causes him to lose the ability to perform. It's the particular form of stress that exams create. He is just an extreme example of what many kids experience - he just says his mind goes blank; he knows that he knows how to e.g. factorise a quadratic, but he can't access that info in the moment.
Of course that is a weakness, but it shouldn't be one that bars him from a whole range of life choices after a set of exams at 16.
So, those religious pensioners gave birth to non religious folk*?
* While younger, obviously
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ben-stokess-bowling-struggles-renew-ashes-injury-fears-flxb5rqph
It won't change many Westminster seats at all, none is a runner.
Whatever the results as the studies I showed above demonstrate atheists have a lower birthrate than Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Jews, especially those who actively worship and practice their faith
I reckon if they put a plane in the air to Rwanda the day the immigration figures come out, the Tories will go up in the following polls. Imagine the front pages if Braverman can get a plane in the air to Rwanda the day the immigration figures come out.
As Truss and Johnson found out, you don't need letters to be ousted.
Remember last October 197 Tory MPs nominated Rishi but only 62 MPs nominated Boris, I doubt much has changed since. Only once the membership get a say again if Rishi and Hunt lose the next general election will a more rightwing leader be elected again
They deserved it.
If Boris Johnson makes the final two he wins.
If the Cons could parachute Zelensky into Mid Beds, he challenges as leader and six weeks later you could have a landslide.
NEW THREAD