Boris canned the East London River crossing between Beckton and Thamesmead.
Why on earth would anyone want to be able to get to Thamesmead?
One hopes to demolish it, and rebuild it at a more realistic density - to provide a decent chunk of the extra homes required in London over the next 25 years.
I was one of the principal objectors to the ELRC and gave evidence at the public inquiry. It would have gone straight through the ward where I was active and would later represent.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
There is a post. The finishing post is 10pm election night.
Until then people can vote. It is all to play for until 10pm, anyone who hasn't voted yet still can, the result is not set in stone yet.
After that point, the race is over and we switch to a few hours reviewing the tape/counting the votes to find out who won. Whoever was first past that finishing post is the winner.
I don't follow politics in London and therefore am genuinely surprised how poorly Khan is polling. I thought Labour were supposed to be miles ahead there. Presume Khan must be a huge drag on Labour - which seems to suggest when Labour are in office the shine can come off very quickly.
Possibly a foretaste of what is in store for Prime Minister Starmer? He doesn't seem particularly well-equipped to retain the affection of voters given the lack of personality or vision. Well, we'll see.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST.
Lots of things in the English language don’t make sense. That doesn’t change the fact what I said was correct.
(See my edit, btw. I'm not shouting at you personally.)
Surely that was what it originally meant though? Surely when the term was coined, whoever coined it had in mind 325 MPs to form a government, rather than the completely postless who-can-get-the-most-votes-in-a-constituency? And it's meaning has changed through misunderstanding? Nothing else would make sense.
No
The person in the lead at the end is the winner
That describes both the end of a race and our electoral system
But the end is decided by score rather than passing a post.
More like an eating contest than a horse race.
No
The end is when the contest is finished.
Yes, but the end is when the hot dogs are finished, not by passing a landmark.
A toasty 24C on the cards for the 1st October here, despite almost 100% cloud cover. Warm nights for the next 3 days should see this month home as the warmest September on record.
And a decidedly non-autumnal 38C in Southern Iberia (October record is 38.8C, though note these max forecasts can be a bit toppy for Alentejo during heatwaves).
Of more geopolitical relevance, still in the high 20s in Southern and Eastern Ukraine, with no rainfall for a while. And still touching 30C in parts of the Balkans where the average at this time of year is the high teens.
Meanwhile for balance the first snow in the high Caucasus of Georgia, where of course I'm heading on holiday in a couple of weeks. I always bring shit weather wherever I go. Temperatures there at or a little below average.
I'd love Hall to win. It would be a hoot in all sorts of ways. That's why I won't be voting tactically for Khan. I will vote Lib Dem for Blackie, even if it helps Hall to win.
London Mayor doesn't have much power in practice. It's a figurehead. And Hall as the Tory figurehead in London would just make me laugh. It would extend the Tory joke.
"It'll be a laugh."
"The Labour candidate is past his sell by date."
"How much harm can they do?"
That's what a lot of us thought in 2008. Can I remind you how that ended?
So you're saying to lay then?
Doubt it.
Khan isn't great.
But Hall is a poor candidate, a poor fit for London as a whole and wearing the wrong rosette.
And the ULEZ conversation is beginning to turn a bit cranks talking to cranks. (A flower bed near me has just been cleared by a community group. Apparently that was to help TFL spy on drivers.)
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
I'd love Hall to win. It would be a hoot in all sorts of ways. That's why I won't be voting tactically for Khan. I will vote Lib Dem for Blackie, even if it helps Hall to win.
London Mayor doesn't have much power in practice. It's a figurehead. And Hall as the Tory figurehead in London would just make me laugh. It would extend the Tory joke.
"It'll be a laugh."
"The Labour candidate is past his sell by date."
"How much harm can they do?"
That's what a lot of us thought in 2008. Can I remind you how that ended?
Boris as Mayor was entertaining, though I agree he did waste a lot of money. I don't think Susan Hall will waste money though she will be entertaining in a different way.
ETIAS travel permit for European countries will be postponed:-
Holidaymakers to European countries will no longer need a travel permit next year as the new rules have been postponed:-
British citizens will be required to register for the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) to enter participating European countries - whether it be for business or tourism. Despite claims it will likely start from 2024, EU sources have confirmed it will be postponed.
ETIAS travel authorisation is an entry requirement for visa-exempt nationals travelling to a select 30 European countries. With a valid ETIAS travel authorisation, you can enter the European countries as often as you want for short-term stays - normally for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
People from the United Kingdom will have to complete ETIAS application once in place prior to travel by air, sea or overland or transiting in Europe en route to other destinations.
However, The European Union has once again postponed the launch date, confirming to SchengenVisaInfo.com that the go-live date for ETIAS has now been delayed to May 2025.
A spokesperson said: "We had initially hoped for the EES to become operational by the end of this year or, at the latest, the beginning of the next year. Due to unforeseen delays, it has become evident that this timeline is unattainable. As a result, the implementation of the ETIAS has been rescheduled to May 2025, with the possibility of further postponement."
It was previously confirmed that the Entry/Exzit system and the ETIAS are both needed to work hand in had for full effectiveness.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I've always thought this. It isn't a good description. Unless it refers to a horse race where you have the winning post, and lots of horses are close together, with one winning.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Indeed, but it is an interesting position for them to take siding with the conservatives
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Well you've convinced Wayne Rooney to vote Lib Dem now.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
A toasty 24C on the cards for the 1st October here, despite almost 100% cloud cover. Warm nights for the next 3 days should see this month home as the warmest September on record.
And a decidedly non-autumnal 38C in Southern Iberia (October record is 38.8C, though note these max forecasts can be a bit toppy for Alentejo during heatwaves).
Of more geopolitical relevance, still in the high 20s in Southern and Eastern Ukraine, with no rainfall for a while. And still touching 30C in parts of the Balkans where the average at this time of year is the high teens.
Meanwhile for balance the first snow in the high Caucasus of Georgia, where of course I'm heading on holiday in a couple of weeks. I always bring shit weather wherever I go. Temperatures there at or a little below average.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Indeed, but it is an interesting position for them to take siding with the conservatives
Why, are Conservatives planning a review of charitable status of private schools?
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Indeed, but it is an interesting position for them to take siding with the conservatives
Reviewing their charitable status goes quite a bit further than simply ending the VAT exemption, I'd have thought. What would happen to their endowments, I wonder?
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Indeed, but it is an interesting position for them to take siding with the conservatives
Reviewing their charitable status goes quite a bit further than simply ending the VAT exemption, I'd have thought. What would happen to their endowments, I wonder?
I have no problem with the lib dem policy and I expect this policy has a long way to run not least because of the complexity and probability of a judicial review
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Indeed, but it is an interesting position for them to take siding with the conservatives
Why, are Conservatives planning a review of charitable status of private schools?
It’s amusing that the Lib Dems find themselves diametrically opposed to Labour who have u-turned on removing the charitable status of private schools.
As with ULEZ, the Lib Dems have no choice but to oppose VAT on school fees as it would be brave to try to sell that in Guildford. Whether it will have any effect remains to be seen, but it might focus a few minds in the Blue Wall.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Heartbreaking for me and I think lots of people. It might have been the only way the country could have a government, but I for one wasn’t totally happy. Did my my best to live with it! But……..
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
I think I flagged on here only this morning that I'd detected a difference between Liberals and Labour on this issue.
Also, the raw politics is that a good number of their seats have high income voters who send their children to private school.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Indeed, but it is an interesting position for them to take siding with the conservatives
Why, are Conservatives planning a review of charitable status of private schools?
It’s amusing that the Lib Dems find themselves diametrically opposed to Labour who have u-turned on removing the charitable status of private schools.
As with ULEZ, the Lib Dems have no choice but to oppose VAT on school fees as it would be brave to try to sell that in Guildford. Whether it will have any effect remains to be seen, but it might focus a few minds in the Blue Wall.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
No I'm not trying to force it, its just the way it is. With an election you have to count to find the winner, but the race ended when the election ended. That was the competitive part.
Counting the votes isn't a part of the election, it happens after the election ends. Its against the law to count the votes during the race.
Whoever has the most votes at 10pm is the winner. It doesn't matter how or when you count the votes, the votes don't change during the count it just reveals what had already happened during the race.
IMO the charity sector is one that is ripe for serious investigation. Some of the big charities behave appallingly - both to their staff and those they are meant to help and emulate some of the worst practices of the corporate world.
Others have poor governance and due diligence and some smaller ones are little better than scams mainly designed to enrich those running them. Yet others are just a racket. I'm not at all convinced they deserve their tax privileges, especially when money is tight as it is now. Frankly, I'd remove them or place an upper limit on what they can claim.
I'd also widen the incidence of VAT. Too many goods and services are exempt.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Heartbreaking for me and I think lots of people. It might have been the only way the country could have a government, but I for one wasn’t totally happy. Did my my best to live with it! But……..
The problem for a third party in a balance of power situation.
In theory, you have lots of power. But unless you can convincingly play Cox off against Box, you don't.
The Lib Dems couldn't do that in 2010, and there's no way they will be able to in 2024/5. (If you disagree, I'd love to hear the scenario where they can actively or passively support the Conservatives.)
Tories + Reform on 41% is very high, although we had a similarly high figure from London earlier (relative to expectations in the capital).
We have two blocs.
The Conservative share is currently depressed, with some modest defections to Labour, but I'm not convinced there's been much of an underlying values shift.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
No I'm not trying to force it, its just the way it is. With an election you have to count to find the winner, but the race ended when the election ended. That was the competitive part.
Counting the votes isn't a part of the election, it happens after the election ends. Its against the law to count the votes during the race.
Whoever has the most votes at 10pm is the winner. It doesn't matter how or when you count the votes, the votes don't change during the count it just reveals what had already happened during the race.
Hmm, not wrong as such but my take is a touch better. After a photo I am declared first past the post and hence the winner. Weighed in, weighed in.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Heartbreaking for me and I think lots of people. It might have been the only way the country could have a government, but I for one wasn’t totally happy. Did my my best to live with it! But……..
The problem for a third party in a balance of power situation.
In theory, you have lots of power. But unless you can convincingly play Cox off against Box, you don't.
The Lib Dems couldn't do that in 2010, and there's no way they will be able to in 2024/5. (If you disagree, I'd love to hear the scenario where they can actively or passively support the Conservatives.)
The tension is between retaining your freedom of action and settling for salaries and ministerial perks and short-term influence. It’s a tough choice for any politician.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
You've got to wonder about their coalition partner if that's their price, though.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
I think I flagged on here only this morning that I'd detected a difference between Liberals and Labour on this issue.
Also, the raw politics is that a good number of their seats have high income voters who send their children to private school.
Mainly the politics, I think. Ditto for Labour. This policy is liked by members and activists, and also polls well in target RW seats. No brainer.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
Indeed, but it is an interesting position for them to take siding with the conservatives
Reviewing their charitable status goes quite a bit further than simply ending the VAT exemption, I'd have thought. What would happen to their endowments, I wonder?
I have no problem with the lib dem policy and I expect this policy has a long way to run not least because of the complexity and probability of a judicial review
I'll crowd fund a judical review all the way, and hope it gets gummed up in the courts.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
No I'm not trying to force it, its just the way it is. With an election you have to count to find the winner, but the race ended when the election ended. That was the competitive part.
Counting the votes isn't a part of the election, it happens after the election ends. Its against the law to count the votes during the race.
Whoever has the most votes at 10pm is the winner. It doesn't matter how or when you count the votes, the votes don't change during the count it just reveals what had already happened during the race.
Hmm, not wrong as such but my take is a touch better. After a photo I am declared first past the post and hence the winner. Weighed in, weighed in.
Absolutely if it goes to a photo finish/count then yes the declaration happens after that.
But the finishing post isn't the declaration, the finishing post is the end of the race.
The counting/photo can only be reviewed after the race is over, not before then.
You'd be amazed how quick the sales staff at B&Q try and assist you after ignoring you for the past 15 minutes when you try and start a chainsaw.
That’s a handy hint. Thank you. I will try that next time I am in B&Q and can’t find anyone to assist me.
In my experience the staff in B and Q know almost nothing about the products they are selling. It's the same with the catalogue shops (Screwfix and Toolstation).
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
No one is first past the post. Because there is no post. Based on what RobD posted earlier, we appear to have picked up a bit of nonsensical Australian idiom.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
You've got to wonder about their coalition partner if that's their price, though.
Any politician worth any salt (which nowadays is probably less than half) would want a shot at top office. And the LibDems achieved far more in the small print of legislation than they will ever get due credit for. Their mistake was in thinking that voters give a xxxx for the small print.
You'd be amazed how quick the sales staff at B&Q try and assist you after ignoring you for the past 15 minutes when you try and start a chainsaw.
That’s a handy hint. Thank you. I will try that next time I am in B&Q and can’t find anyone to assist me.
In my experience the staff in B and Q know almost nothing about the products they are selling. It's the same with the catalogue shops (Screwfix and Toolstation).
And computer shops.
Last place I'd recommend anyone seeks advice over computers is PC World/Dixons/Currys/whatever they call themselves today.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
You've got to wonder about their coalition partner if that's their price, though.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
No one is first past the post. Because there is no post. Based on what RobD posted earlier, we appear to have picked up a bit of nonsensical Australian idiom.
First-past-the-post voting (FPTP or FPP)[1] is an electoral system wherein voters cast a vote for a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. Analogous systems for multi-winner contests are known as plurality block voting or "block voting" systems; both FPTP and block voting are "plurality" systems in that the winner needs only a plurality (the greatest number) of the votes and not an absolute majority (greater than half). The term first-past-the-post is a metaphor from horse racing of the plurality-voted candidate winning such a race; the electoral system is formally called single-member plurality voting (SMP) when used in single-member districts, and informally called choose-one voting in contrast to ranked voting[2] or score voting.[3]
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
No I'm not trying to force it, its just the way it is. With an election you have to count to find the winner, but the race ended when the election ended. That was the competitive part.
Counting the votes isn't a part of the election, it happens after the election ends. Its against the law to count the votes during the race.
Whoever has the most votes at 10pm is the winner. It doesn't matter how or when you count the votes, the votes don't change during the count it just reveals what had already happened during the race.
Hmm, not wrong as such but my take is a touch better. After a photo I am declared first past the post and hence the winner. Weighed in, weighed in.
Absolutely if it goes to a photo finish/count then yes the declaration happens after that.
But the finishing post isn't the declaration, the finishing post is the end of the race.
The counting/photo can only be reviewed after the race is over, not before then.
No point banging on now. It's over and I was FPTP.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
No one is first past the post. Because there is no post. Based on what RobD posted earlier, we appear to have picked up a bit of nonsensical Australian idiom.
Not true. Myself and Bart have taken this forward and cracked it.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
No I'm not trying to force it, its just the way it is. With an election you have to count to find the winner, but the race ended when the election ended. That was the competitive part.
Counting the votes isn't a part of the election, it happens after the election ends. Its against the law to count the votes during the race.
Whoever has the most votes at 10pm is the winner. It doesn't matter how or when you count the votes, the votes don't change during the count it just reveals what had already happened during the race.
Hmm, not wrong as such but my take is a touch better. After a photo I am declared first past the post and hence the winner. Weighed in, weighed in.
Absolutely if it goes to a photo finish/count then yes the declaration happens after that.
But the finishing post isn't the declaration, the finishing post is the end of the race.
The counting/photo can only be reviewed after the race is over, not before then.
No point banging on now. It's over and I was FPTP.
Its over and as you said, I was not wrong (read: right).
You were not only wrong, you were against the law in your suggestion.
The law is you can't start the count until after the close of polls, which is the finishing post of the race.
So first past the post is correct.
Since you've accepted I was right, there's no need to continue this discussion. Have a good evening.
ETIAS travel permit for European countries will be postponed:-
Holidaymakers to European countries will no longer need a travel permit next year as the new rules have been postponed:-
British citizens will be required to register for the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) to enter participating European countries - whether it be for business or tourism. Despite claims it will likely start from 2024, EU sources have confirmed it will be postponed.
ETIAS travel authorisation is an entry requirement for visa-exempt nationals travelling to a select 30 European countries. With a valid ETIAS travel authorisation, you can enter the European countries as often as you want for short-term stays - normally for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
People from the United Kingdom will have to complete ETIAS application once in place prior to travel by air, sea or overland or transiting in Europe en route to other destinations.
However, The European Union has once again postponed the launch date, confirming to SchengenVisaInfo.com that the go-live date for ETIAS has now been delayed to May 2025.
A spokesperson said: "We had initially hoped for the EES to become operational by the end of this year or, at the latest, the beginning of the next year. Due to unforeseen delays, it has become evident that this timeline is unattainable. As a result, the implementation of the ETIAS has been rescheduled to May 2025, with the possibility of further postponement."
It was previously confirmed that the Entry/Exzit system and the ETIAS are both needed to work hand in had for full effectiveness.
This is going to mean another year of passport control queues going in to the EU. They seem to have chilled out a bit in Finland lately but earlier in the summer I spent nearly an hour waiting to get my passport stamped whilst the border guards go through a theatre of interrogation on every traveller.
IMO the charity sector is one that is ripe for serious investigation. Some of the big charities behave appallingly - both to their staff and those they are meant to help and emulate some of the worst practices of the corporate world.
Others have poor governance and due diligence and some smaller ones are little better than scams mainly designed to enrich those running them. Yet others are just a racket. I'm not at all convinced they deserve their tax privileges, especially when money is tight as it is now. Frankly, I'd remove them or place an upper limit on what they can claim.
I'd also widen the incidence of VAT. Too many goods and services are exempt.
French VAT, for comparison. Lots of reduced rates, but hardly any zero:
You'd be amazed how quick the sales staff at B&Q try and assist you after ignoring you for the past 15 minutes when you try and start a chainsaw.
That’s a handy hint. Thank you. I will try that next time I am in B&Q and can’t find anyone to assist me.
In my experience the staff in B and Q know almost nothing about the products they are selling. It's the same with the catalogue shops (Screwfix and Toolstation).
And computer shops.
Last place I'd recommend anyone seeks advice over computers is PC World/Dixons/Currys/whatever they call themselves today.
Yeah this is my experience too. I bought a laser printer (see previous posts) online from currys that failed on setting it up. I took it in to the shop to ask someone to look at it, they seemed to think I was completely insane.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
I always use "to a glue factory", as it is more alliterative !
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
No one is first past the post. Because there is no post. Based on what RobD posted earlier, we appear to have picked up a bit of nonsensical Australian idiom.
First-past-the-post voting (FPTP or FPP)[1] is an electoral system wherein voters cast a vote for a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. Analogous systems for multi-winner contests are known as plurality block voting or "block voting" systems; both FPTP and block voting are "plurality" systems in that the winner needs only a plurality (the greatest number) of the votes and not an absolute majority (greater than half). The term first-past-the-post is a metaphor from horse racing of the plurality-voted candidate winning such a race; the electoral system is formally called single-member plurality voting (SMP) when used in single-member districts, and informally called choose-one voting in contrast to ranked voting[2] or score voting.[3]
Well yes. My point is it's a terrible metaphor. If we're to compare it to a horse race, it would be a who-can-get-the-furthest-in-a-given time election. Because you don't know from the start how many votes you need to get, only that you need to go further than your opponents.
And of course it's not timed.
If we must use horses for an analogy, it ought to be a horse popularity contest. A which-horse-gets-the-most-votes. I propose we use the abbreviation WHGTMV in future.
(I never really accepted metaphors as a valid literary device.)
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
You've got to wonder about their coalition partner if that's their price, though.
Any politician worth any salt (which nowadays is probably less than half) would want a shot at top office. And the LibDems achieved far more in the small print of legislation than they will ever get due credit for. Their mistake was in thinking that voters give a xxxx for the small print.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
No one is first past the post. Because there is no post. Based on what RobD posted earlier, we appear to have picked up a bit of nonsensical Australian idiom.
First-past-the-post voting (FPTP or FPP)[1] is an electoral system wherein voters cast a vote for a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. Analogous systems for multi-winner contests are known as plurality block voting or "block voting" systems; both FPTP and block voting are "plurality" systems in that the winner needs only a plurality (the greatest number) of the votes and not an absolute majority (greater than half). The term first-past-the-post is a metaphor from horse racing of the plurality-voted candidate winning such a race; the electoral system is formally called single-member plurality voting (SMP) when used in single-member districts, and informally called choose-one voting in contrast to ranked voting[2] or score voting.[3]
Well yes. My point is it's a terrible metaphor. If we're to compare it to a horse race, it would be a who-can-get-the-furthest-in-a-given time election. Because you don't know from the start how many votes you need to get, only that you need to go further than your opponents.
And of course it's not timed.
If we must use horses for an analogy, it ought to be a horse popularity contest. A which-horse-gets-the-most-votes. I propose we use the abbreviation WHGTMV in future.
(I never really accepted metaphors as a valid literary device.)
"not timed"?
So you can turn up to a polling station to vote at 10:01pm on election night can you?
The race ends at 10pm. At that point counting can start to see who won the race, which has finished when the polls closed.
Interesting from the Lib Dems especially if they are in coalition with labour post GE24
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
Surely we established per adventure in 2010 that the Lib Dems would sell their granny into the sex trade for a whiff of political office?
I always use "to a glue factory", as it is more alliterative !
Both are stupid. As I pointed out to @rcs1000 a while back, when someone was discussing people who'd sell your granny.
Selling your granny creates a large tax liability.
What you do is is create Collateralised Elderly Relative Options. And create the OTC market to go with them. You structure these so that physical delivery is offshore, in a zero tax domain.
Anyone want a glossy brochure with all the reasons that CERO is the next big thing?
ETIAS travel permit for European countries will be postponed:-
Holidaymakers to European countries will no longer need a travel permit next year as the new rules have been postponed:-
British citizens will be required to register for the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) to enter participating European countries - whether it be for business or tourism. Despite claims it will likely start from 2024, EU sources have confirmed it will be postponed.
ETIAS travel authorisation is an entry requirement for visa-exempt nationals travelling to a select 30 European countries. With a valid ETIAS travel authorisation, you can enter the European countries as often as you want for short-term stays - normally for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
People from the United Kingdom will have to complete ETIAS application once in place prior to travel by air, sea or overland or transiting in Europe en route to other destinations.
However, The European Union has once again postponed the launch date, confirming to SchengenVisaInfo.com that the go-live date for ETIAS has now been delayed to May 2025.
A spokesperson said: "We had initially hoped for the EES to become operational by the end of this year or, at the latest, the beginning of the next year. Due to unforeseen delays, it has become evident that this timeline is unattainable. As a result, the implementation of the ETIAS has been rescheduled to May 2025, with the possibility of further postponement."
It was previously confirmed that the Entry/Exzit system and the ETIAS are both needed to work hand in had for full effectiveness.
This is going to mean another year of passport control queues going in to the EU. They seem to have chilled out a bit in Finland lately but earlier in the summer I spent nearly an hour waiting to get my passport stamped whilst the border guards go through a theatre of interrogation on every traveller.
The Nordic countries are all doing the whole interrogation thing properly. I’ve had it a lot in Denmark, and a bit in Germany too. Southern Europe and France much more cursory. That either means:
- The Southern Europeans are racially / culturally profiling, which they’re not supposed to do - The Nordics put more stall by following the guidelines properly rather than taking shortcuts, or - Southern Europe knows it needs the tourists so has an incentive to go easy
Nobody else is defending Sadiq Khan, so I'll have a brief go.
He's impressive. However much pressure he's under, whenever I've seen him or heard him, he's calm, courteous and unflappable. He knows what he thinks, and what he thinks is good for London, and isn't easily distracted by the winds of political fortune. He sticks to his guns, in a measured way, and is admirably consistent.
Regarding the issue of private schools, it goes well against the zeitgeist but I think they should be subsidised, and fees reduced significantly. Middle class people who live in poor areas should be able to access good education for their children without moving to a well to do area with good state schools. This is really about levelling up.
I'd love Hall to win. It would be a hoot in all sorts of ways. That's why I won't be voting tactically for Khan. I will vote Lib Dem for Blackie, even if it helps Hall to win.
London Mayor doesn't have much power in practice. It's a figurehead. And Hall as the Tory figurehead in London would just make me laugh. It would extend the Tory joke.
Ah the old “it would be funny if” line - a vote for the pointless Liberal is a vote for the Powellite loon. I thought better of you.
Regarding the issue of private schools, it goes well against the zeitgeist but I think they should be subsidised, and fees reduced significantly. Middle class people who live in poor areas should be able to access good education for their children without moving to a well to do area with good state schools. This is really about levelling up.
That’s part of my third way. The more we can blur the boundaries, while ensuring the vast majority of children get completely free education, the less we’ll have this class divide which helps nobody.
Nobody else is defending Sadiq Khan, so I'll have a brief go.
He's impressive. However much pressure he's under, whenever I've seen him or heard him, he's calm, courteous and unflappable. He knows what he thinks, and what he thinks is good for London, and isn't easily distracted by the winds of political fortune. He sticks to his guns, in a measured way, and is admirably consistent.
I couldn't write any of the above about Sunak.
Seconded. Ideally, you want a Mayor for a city/metro/whatever to do things;
One is to dance on the rooftops about how brilliant their patch is.
The other is to attend to the engine room stuff, to make their patch reasonably tolerable at least.
A really good Mayor can do both. Ken did, I get the distant impression that Andy Street does as well.
Boris did the first, but did naff all for the second. (Go on. What did he create and deliver? The bikes and the Olympics both started under Livingstone.)
If I can only choose one, I'd rather have the engine room over the rooftop. From that point of view, Sadiq is basically fine, and better than any alternative on offer.
Regarding the issue of private schools, it goes well against the zeitgeist but I think they should be subsidised, and fees reduced significantly. Middle class people who live in poor areas should be able to access good education for their children without moving to a well to do area with good state schools. This is really about levelling up.
Wouldn't it be somewhat better if poor people in poor areas could access a first-rate education for their children, in state schools? (As many already do, of course.)
I'd love Hall to win. It would be a hoot in all sorts of ways. That's why I won't be voting tactically for Khan. I will vote Lib Dem for Blackie, even if it helps Hall to win.
London Mayor doesn't have much power in practice. It's a figurehead. And Hall as the Tory figurehead in London would just make me laugh. It would extend the Tory joke.
Ah the old “it would be funny if” line - a vote for the pointless Liberal is a vote for the Powellite loon. I thought better of you.
And there you have it. Exhibit A of why FPTP is shit.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Well you have to count to see who's won. Before then you don't know who it is. Eg if you never count you never have a winner. So the 'post' is when the count ends. Or, and this could happen, when the count is in process but somebody leads by miles. Then you can 'call it' - like they do in America. But we aren't talking about America.
Yes you have to count to see who's won, but that's outside of the race its not part of it.
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
They've haven't reached the post, no, because we're defining the post to be when there's a winner. FPTP.
That's not the definition, no.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
You're trying to force an exact horse racing analogy. With a horse race the naked eye sees who's won, with only a small proportion needing photo review or a stewards, and even then you usually know.
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
No one is first past the post. Because there is no post. Based on what RobD posted earlier, we appear to have picked up a bit of nonsensical Australian idiom.
Not true. Myself and Bart have taken this forward and cracked it.
Regarding the issue of private schools, it goes well against the zeitgeist but I think they should be subsidised, and fees reduced significantly. Middle class people who live in poor areas should be able to access good education for their children without moving to a well to do area with good state schools. This is really about levelling up.
Wouldn't it be somewhat better if poor people in poor areas could access a first-rate education for their children, in state schools? (As many already do, of course.)
To get there from here though it makes sense to bring as many of the resources of the private school sector to bear as possible.
ETIAS travel permit for European countries will be postponed:-
Holidaymakers to European countries will no longer need a travel permit next year as the new rules have been postponed:-
British citizens will be required to register for the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) to enter participating European countries - whether it be for business or tourism. Despite claims it will likely start from 2024, EU sources have confirmed it will be postponed.
ETIAS travel authorisation is an entry requirement for visa-exempt nationals travelling to a select 30 European countries. With a valid ETIAS travel authorisation, you can enter the European countries as often as you want for short-term stays - normally for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
People from the United Kingdom will have to complete ETIAS application once in place prior to travel by air, sea or overland or transiting in Europe en route to other destinations.
However, The European Union has once again postponed the launch date, confirming to SchengenVisaInfo.com that the go-live date for ETIAS has now been delayed to May 2025.
A spokesperson said: "We had initially hoped for the EES to become operational by the end of this year or, at the latest, the beginning of the next year. Due to unforeseen delays, it has become evident that this timeline is unattainable. As a result, the implementation of the ETIAS has been rescheduled to May 2025, with the possibility of further postponement."
It was previously confirmed that the Entry/Exzit system and the ETIAS are both needed to work hand in had for full effectiveness.
This is going to mean another year of passport control queues going in to the EU. They seem to have chilled out a bit in Finland lately but earlier in the summer I spent nearly an hour waiting to get my passport stamped whilst the border guards go through a theatre of interrogation on every traveller.
The Nordic countries are all doing the whole interrogation thing properly. I’ve had it a lot in Denmark, and a bit in Germany too. Southern Europe and France much more cursory. That either means:
- The Southern Europeans are racially / culturally profiling, which they’re not supposed to do - The Nordics put more stall by following the guidelines properly rather than taking shortcuts, or - Southern Europe knows it needs the tourists so has an incentive to go easy
If you travel to the EU a lot beware of the 90/180 day rule. There is a rolling 180 day period and you cannot have been in the EU for more than 90 of the previous 180 days, including days of entry and exit. The passport officer pointed it out to me on my last exit and I am grateful he did because I it turned out I am quite close to the limit.
Comments
Until then people can vote. It is all to play for until 10pm, anyone who hasn't voted yet still can, the result is not set in stone yet.
After that point, the race is over and we switch to a few hours reviewing the tape/counting the votes to find out who won. Whoever was first past that finishing post is the winner.
Possibly a foretaste of what is in store for Prime Minister Starmer? He doesn't seem particularly well-equipped to retain the affection of voters given the lack of personality or vision. Well, we'll see.
Khan isn't great.
But Hall is a poor candidate, a poor fit for London as a whole and wearing the wrong rosette.
And the ULEZ conversation is beginning to turn a bit cranks talking to cranks. (A flower bed near me has just been cleared by a community group. Apparently that was to help TFL spy on drivers.)
I'm not a horse racing fan, if the stewards have to review the tape to see who was winner at the end of the race, or it goes to a stewards enquiry, then that's not a part of the race, the race ended when the finishing post was reached, its just determining who was first past it.
Just because you don't know who was first past the post yet, doesn't mean they're not already past it. If a horse race has gone to a stewards enquiry as two horses crossed about the same time and it needs settling does that mean the horses haven't reached the post yet?
It's a field event.
Holidaymakers to European countries will no longer need a travel permit next year as the new rules have been postponed:-
British citizens will be required to register for the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) to enter participating European countries - whether it be for business or tourism. Despite claims it will likely start from 2024, EU sources have confirmed it will be postponed.
ETIAS travel authorisation is an entry requirement for visa-exempt nationals travelling to a select 30 European countries. With a valid ETIAS travel authorisation, you can enter the European countries as often as you want for short-term stays - normally for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
People from the United Kingdom will have to complete ETIAS application once in place prior to travel by air, sea or overland or transiting in Europe en route to other destinations.
However, The European Union has once again postponed the launch date, confirming to SchengenVisaInfo.com that the go-live date for ETIAS has now been delayed to May 2025.
A spokesperson said: "We had initially hoped for the EES to become operational by the end of this year or, at the latest, the beginning of the next year. Due to unforeseen delays, it has become evident that this timeline is unattainable. As a result, the implementation of the ETIAS has been rescheduled to May 2025, with the possibility of further postponement."
It was previously confirmed that the Entry/Exzit system and the ETIAS are both needed to work hand in had for full effectiveness.
The winner is whoever has the most votes after the the end of the race. The race ended at 10pm on election night, not when the result is declared by the Returning Officer.
Just because you don't know yet the result doesn't mean the race is still happening. The race ended at 10pm, after that its just finding out who won, but the voting has stopped.
Liberal Democrats oppose Labour’s VAT plan for private schools in fresh dividing line between parties
September 27, 2023 4:25 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)
The Liberal Democrats have opened a fresh dividing line with Labour by speaking out against the party’s policy of imposing VAT on private schools.
Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that the new levy on school fees will be one of his top priorities if he wins the next general election.
As i revealed this week, Labour intends to introduce the policy as soon as it takes power – raising the prospect that it would take effect as soon as next academic year.
But the Lib Dems said they opposed the policy, although they would support a review of charitable status among schools due to fears that some do little to help their local area.
A spokesman said: “The Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption. We do think some private schools benefit from lower taxes due to charitable status even though they perform almost no charitable act on behalf of the community – so charitable status does need to be reviewed so that it only rewards schools that do real community work.”
University.
Tuition.
Fees.
Really, for polyfilla !!!!!
A FPTP election here in the UK isn't like that. With an election you have to count to find the winner. So the count is the final part of the race. If you wish to dispute this you must address my original question. If the count never happens how can anybody be first past the post?
We're getting into philosophy here. Unexpected development.
Hall won’t win, an easy betting lay.
Watching LK3, what a shitshow the Tories have inflicted upon us all.
As with ULEZ, the Lib Dems have no choice but to oppose VAT on school fees as it would be brave to try to sell that in Guildford. Whether it will have any effect remains to be seen, but it might focus a few minds in the Blue Wall.
Also, the raw politics is that a good number of their seats have high income voters who send their children to private school.
https://twitter.com/ProjectFootball/status/1706731253511107033
Counting the votes isn't a part of the election, it happens after the election ends. Its against the law to count the votes during the race.
Whoever has the most votes at 10pm is the winner. It doesn't matter how or when you count the votes, the votes don't change during the count it just reveals what had already happened during the race.
Others have poor governance and due diligence and some smaller ones are little better than scams mainly designed to enrich those running them. Yet others are just a racket. I'm not at all convinced they deserve their tax privileges, especially when money is tight as it is now. Frankly, I'd remove them or place an upper limit on what they can claim.
I'd also widen the incidence of VAT. Too many goods and services are exempt.
In theory, you have lots of power. But unless you can convincingly play Cox off against Box, you don't.
The Lib Dems couldn't do that in 2010, and there's no way they will be able to in 2024/5. (If you disagree, I'd love to hear the scenario where they can actively or passively support the Conservatives.)
TLDR
The Conservative share is currently depressed, with some modest defections to Labour, but I'm not convinced there's been much of an underlying values shift.
But the finishing post isn't the declaration, the finishing post is the end of the race.
The counting/photo can only be reviewed after the race is over, not before then.
Based on what RobD posted earlier, we appear to have picked up a bit of nonsensical Australian idiom.
Last place I'd recommend anyone seeks advice over computers is PC World/Dixons/Currys/whatever they call themselves today.
😁
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
TLDR
LK: “within days, both she and the £ were fighting to survive”…
You were not only wrong, you were against the law in your suggestion.
The law is you can't start the count until after the close of polls, which is the finishing post of the race.
So first past the post is correct.
Since you've accepted I was right, there's no need to continue this discussion. Have a good evening.
https://marosavat.com/manual/vat/france/
And of course it's not timed.
If we must use horses for an analogy, it ought to be a horse popularity contest. A which-horse-gets-the-most-votes. I propose we use the abbreviation WHGTMV in future.
(I never really accepted metaphors as a valid literary device.)
So you can turn up to a polling station to vote at 10:01pm on election night can you?
The race ends at 10pm. At that point counting can start to see who won the race, which has finished when the polls closed.
“This is the most pitiful reflection on the Conservative Parliamentary Party at every level”
“The damage they have done to the party is extraordinary”
Selling your granny creates a large tax liability.
What you do is is create Collateralised Elderly Relative Options. And create the OTC market to go with them. You structure these so that physical delivery is offshore, in a zero tax domain.
Anyone want a glossy brochure with all the reasons that CERO is the next big thing?
- The Southern Europeans are racially / culturally profiling, which they’re not supposed to do
- The Nordics put more stall by following the guidelines properly rather than taking shortcuts, or
- Southern Europe knows it needs the tourists so has an incentive to go easy
He's impressive. However much pressure he's under, whenever I've seen him or heard him, he's calm, courteous and unflappable. He knows what he thinks, and what he thinks is good for London, and isn't easily distracted by the winds of political fortune. He sticks to his guns, in a measured way, and is admirably consistent.
I couldn't write any of the above about Sunak.
One is to dance on the rooftops about how brilliant their patch is.
The other is to attend to the engine room stuff, to make their patch reasonably tolerable at least.
A really good Mayor can do both. Ken did, I get the distant impression that Andy Street does as well.
Boris did the first, but did naff all for the second. (Go on. What did he create and deliver? The bikes and the Olympics both started under Livingstone.)
If I can only choose one, I'd rather have the engine room over the rooftop. From that point of view, Sadiq is basically fine, and better than any alternative on offer.
Seabrook anyone?