I have had conversations with charity collectors which represented the treatment of diseases I was extremely eager to contribute money to, but could not because I refuse to transfer money online. I even offered to just give them a tenner just for being good people, but they refused to take it. It's bloody annoying.
Refusing to take cash donations is ridiculous.
Why? Handling cash is expensive, time consuming and risky. Most people don’t bother with the stuff. Why should businesses/charities accept it? It’s a complete pain in the arse to handle. And pointless. Just use contactless. Easy.
I used cash in my local Aldi and the corner shop today
I have had conversations with charity collectors which represented the treatment of diseases I was extremely eager to contribute money to, but could not because I refuse to transfer money online. I even offered to just give them a tenner just for being good people, but they refused to take it. It's bloody annoying.
Refusing to take cash donations is ridiculous.
Why? Handling cash is expensive, time consuming and risky. Most people don’t bother with the stuff. Why should businesses/charities accept it? It’s a complete pain in the arse to handle. And pointless. Just use contactless. Easy.
I used cash in my local Aldi and the corner shop today
I have had conversations with charity collectors which represented the treatment of diseases I was extremely eager to contribute money to, but could not because I refuse to transfer money online. I even offered to just give them a tenner just for being good people, but they refused to take it. It's bloody annoying.
Refusing to take cash donations is ridiculous.
Why? Handling cash is expensive, time consuming and risky. Most people don’t bother with the stuff. Why should businesses/charities accept it? It’s a complete pain in the arse to handle. And pointless. Just use contactless. Easy.
I used cash in my local Aldi and the corner shop today
Why?
Why not?
It’s a pointless faff.
Don’t get why anyone would bother with it.
Who are you to dictate to me whether or not I use cash?
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
I have had conversations with charity collectors which represented the treatment of diseases I was extremely eager to contribute money to, but could not because I refuse to transfer money online. I even offered to just give them a tenner just for being good people, but they refused to take it. It's bloody annoying.
Refusing to take cash donations is ridiculous.
Why? Handling cash is expensive, time consuming and risky. Most people don’t bother with the stuff. Why should businesses/charities accept it? It’s a complete pain in the arse to handle. And pointless. Just use contactless. Easy.
I used cash in my local Aldi and the corner shop today
Why?
Why not?
It’s a pointless faff.
Don’t get why anyone would bother with it.
Who are you to dictate to me whether or not I use cash?
Er, I’m not. You can do what you like. I’m simply asking you why you bother with it. Seems utterly pointless to me.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
The true picture of A&E waiting times in Wales has been seriously under-reported for a decade, the BBC can reveal. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) has established thousands of hours are missed from monthly figures.
I'm not religious, but this bit of Genesis has been running through my head for the last few days:
And Abraham came near and said, “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You...
Hamas already "slew the righteous", or at least the innocent. But regardless of whether you think Hamas is evil, which I do, Israel has the capacity to wreak 100 times as much destruction.
"An exit poll after today’s national referendum in Poland, which was held simultaneously with parliamentary elections, suggests that not enough people voted for it to be valid.
That would be a blow to the government, which called the referendum and included questions on the EU’s migration policies, among other issues. The exit poll for the elections also indicates that the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has lost power.
Whereas turnout for the elections was a record high of 72.9%, according to pollster Ipsos, for the referendum it was only 40%. For a referendum to be binding, the figure must be above 50%. The official results are expected to be confirmed by Tuesday at the latest."
"An exit poll after today’s national referendum in Poland, which was held simultaneously with parliamentary elections, suggests that not enough people voted for it to be valid.
That would be a blow to the government, which called the referendum and included questions on the EU’s migration policies, among other issues. The exit poll for the elections also indicates that the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has lost power.
Whereas turnout for the elections was a record high of 72.9%, according to pollster Ipsos, for the referendum it was only 40%. For a referendum to be binding, the figure must be above 50%. The official results are expected to be confirmed by Tuesday at the latest."
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
"An exit poll after today’s national referendum in Poland, which was held simultaneously with parliamentary elections, suggests that not enough people voted for it to be valid.
That would be a blow to the government, which called the referendum and included questions on the EU’s migration policies, among other issues. The exit poll for the elections also indicates that the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has lost power.
Whereas turnout for the elections was a record high of 72.9%, according to pollster Ipsos, for the referendum it was only 40%. For a referendum to be binding, the figure must be above 50%. The official results are expected to be confirmed by Tuesday at the latest."
Poland continues the trend of throwing out governments but you can hardly call it an anti-woke move; rather the opposite.
Donald Tusk did run on a platform of opposing immigration and accusing PiS of losing control of the borders, so it's not exactly a move towards more liberalism.
The life expectancy at birth is about 75 years, and the total fertility rate is about 4, which is especially striking considering Gaza is almost entirely urban.
The net migration rate was estimated at -5/1000 in 2018, so a significant number of people are able to leave. (Or, at least, were.)
Unemployment is terribly high, so I assume many there are living on handouts from Qatar, and similar nations.
(Possibly significant: The population is almost entirley Sunni Muslim -- unlike Iran.)
"An exit poll after today’s national referendum in Poland, which was held simultaneously with parliamentary elections, suggests that not enough people voted for it to be valid.
That would be a blow to the government, which called the referendum and included questions on the EU’s migration policies, among other issues. The exit poll for the elections also indicates that the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has lost power.
Whereas turnout for the elections was a record high of 72.9%, according to pollster Ipsos, for the referendum it was only 40%. For a referendum to be binding, the figure must be above 50%. The official results are expected to be confirmed by Tuesday at the latest."
Poland continues the trend of throwing out governments but you can hardly call it an anti-woke move; rather the opposite.
Donald Tusk did run on a platform of opposing immigration and accusing PiS of losing control of the borders, so it's not exactly a move towards more liberalism.
Tusk ran on a platform of:
(a) Less illegal immigration (b) Less corruption (c) Closer ties to the EU
But he won for pretty much exactly the same reason that oppositions are winning worldwide: the cost of living.
For the first time in 30 years, people are seeing disposable income severely squeezed by inflation. Most voters have never experienced it before, and they're not happy.
Whether left wing or right wing, governments are in trouble.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
"The voting system we use is crooked" == "My team never win!"
*No* voting system is perfect, because we all want different things from such a system. For instance, I want to vote for a named person, *not* a party (party list systems are an anathema to me). I quite like there being clear winners. I like to see a manifesto of ideas that might be implemented by the winner, not soe shady back-room coalition deals.
Others might laugh or sneer at those, but I quite like them..
"having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in"
That's rubbish, because unless you're a total party stooge, what you believe in probably does not match a single party.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
"The voting system we use is crooked" == "My team never win!"
*No* voting system is perfect, because we all want different things from such a system. For instance, I want to vote for a named person, *not* a party (party list systems are an anathema to me). I quite like there being clear winners. I like to see a manifesto of ideas that might be implemented by the winner, not soe shady back-room coalition deals.
Others might laugh or sneer at those, but I quite like them..
"having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in"
That's rubbish, because unless you're a total party stooge, what you believe in probably does not match a single party.
No once is an arguing for perfection.
As for rubbish arguments, saying that no voting system is perfect means we can't say which in might be more, or less fair is a failure of both rhetoric and logic.
Similarly with which party we might prefer over another.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
"The voting system we use is crooked" == "My team never win!"
*No* voting system is perfect, because we all want different things from such a system. For instance, I want to vote for a named person, *not* a party (party list systems are an anathema to me). I quite like there being clear winners. I like to see a manifesto of ideas that might be implemented by the winner, not soe shady back-room coalition deals.
Others might laugh or sneer at those, but I quite like them..
"having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in"
That's rubbish, because unless you're a total party stooge, what you believe in probably does not match a single party.
No once is an arguing for perfection.
As for rubbish arguments, saying that no voting system is perfect means we can't say which in might be more, or less fair is a failure of both rhetoric and logic.
Similarly with which party we might prefer over another.
I'm not arguing for perfection. Neither am I arguing that the current system is 'perfect' - it isn't.
The problem is people not liking the voting system because their team loses. elections cannot be a system where everyone wins - not, at least, in a democracy. And *every* party that looks at reforming the system look to do so for their own advantage, not for what might improve the system.
When talking about a voting system, instead of looking at what advantages me, or my party, we need to look at the fundamental principles and go from there.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
The voting system isn't crooked, everyone starts each election with zero votes and then the voters decide. Just put forward what you believe in and convince the most voters to back you. If you can't do that, take some responsibility for your own actions.
And Labour and Lib Dems aren't interchangeable. If they were, they'd be the same party not two very different ones.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
The voting system isn't crooked, everyone starts each election with zero votes and then the voters decide. Just put forward what you believe in and convince the most voters to back you. If you can't do that, take some responsibility for your own actions.
And Labour and Lib Dems aren't interchangeable. If they were, they'd be the same party not two very different ones.
That last sentence is very much on the money and something the ‘progressive allliance’ centrist dad types forget with their wet dreams about it.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
I thought they kept saying he was an independent contractor, so its interesting that they will continue to employ him until 2024.
I wonder if the Guardian have been paying Employers National Insurance etc on his employment the whole time he's been employed, or if they've been engaging in tax avoidance?
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
Part of the problem with modern politics is this.
You disagree with FPTP. Fine.
But it’s not “crooked”.
You would prefer an alternative that would be better for your preferred party. Fine.
But don’t cast doubt on the legitimacy of the current system.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
I thought they kept saying he was an independent contractor, so its interesting that they will continue to employ him until 2024.
I wonder if the Guardian have been paying Employers National Insurance etc on his employment the whole time he's been employed, or if they've been engaging in tax avoidance?
I can’t believe that you think an organisation that uses Cayman Island based vehicles to minimise tax would engage in tax minimisation strategies in other parts of the business!
But presumably he has 6 months notice on his contract even if an independent contractor
This is a much more interesting Biden quote from that article:
it would be a mistake … for Israel to occupy … Gaza again,” Biden added. “But going in but taking out the extremists — the Hezbollah is up north but Hamas down south — is a necessary requirement.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
Given his track record, I bet he's sent some in that are much worse, and he released that one to stem criticism. "See! This is what they didn't like!!!"
"An exit poll after today’s national referendum in Poland, which was held simultaneously with parliamentary elections, suggests that not enough people voted for it to be valid.
That would be a blow to the government, which called the referendum and included questions on the EU’s migration policies, among other issues. The exit poll for the elections also indicates that the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has lost power.
Whereas turnout for the elections was a record high of 72.9%, according to pollster Ipsos, for the referendum it was only 40%. For a referendum to be binding, the figure must be above 50%. The official results are expected to be confirmed by Tuesday at the latest."
Poland continues the trend of throwing out governments but you can hardly call it an anti-woke move; rather the opposite.
Donald Tusk did run on a platform of opposing immigration and accusing PiS of losing control of the borders, so it's not exactly a move towards more liberalism.
PiS and the far-right Confederation ran on even stronger platforms of opposing immigration, and both lost seats. The centrists (and the left) did well.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
"The voting system we use is crooked" == "My team never win!"
*No* voting system is perfect, because we all want different things from such a system. For instance, I want to vote for a named person, *not* a party (party list systems are an anathema to me). I quite like there being clear winners. I like to see a manifesto of ideas that might be implemented by the winner, not soe shady back-room coalition deals.
Others might laugh or sneer at those, but I quite like them..
"having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in"
That's rubbish, because unless you're a total party stooge, what you believe in probably does not match a single party.
No once is an arguing for perfection.
As for rubbish arguments, saying that no voting system is perfect means we can't say which in might be more, or less fair is a failure of both rhetoric and logic.
Similarly with which party we might prefer over another.
I'm not arguing for perfection. Neither am I arguing that the current system is 'perfect' - it isn't.
The problem is people not liking the voting system because their team loses. elections cannot be a system where everyone wins - not, at least, in a democracy. And *every* party that looks at reforming the system look to do so for their own advantage, not for what might improve the system.
When talking about a voting system, instead of looking at what advantages me, or my party, we need to look at the fundamental principles and go from there.
The SNP support STV, a system they would win fewer seats with.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
Given his track record, I bet he's sent some in that are much worse, and he released that one to stem criticism. "See! This is what they didn't like!!!"
He should have gone after the Patel one.
I agree - that was both misogynistic and racist as well as being deeply unfunny
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
This is a much more interesting Biden quote from that article:
it would be a mistake … for Israel to occupy … Gaza again,” Biden added. “But going in but taking out the extremists — the Hezbollah is up north but Hamas down south — is a necessary requirement.
Biden advocating an invasion of Lebanon (even if he might be right from an Israeli defence point of view) is hardly likely to ease tensions in Northern Israel.
This is a much more interesting Biden quote from that article:
it would be a mistake … for Israel to occupy … Gaza again,” Biden added. “But going in but taking out the extremists — the Hezbollah is up north but Hamas down south — is a necessary requirement.
Biden advocating an invasion of Lebanon (even if he might be right from an Israeli defence point of view) is hardly likely to ease tensions in Northern Israel.
I also suspect he wouldn’t have said it if it hadn’t already been discussed
Edit: rereading it, the “is” is critical. It makes it a statement of geographical fact as well as equating Hamas to Hezbollah (which may be relevant from a US public perspective). It’s technically not a suggestion that taking out both is warranted, although it does lay the groundwork for a future northern incursion
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
"The voting system we use is crooked" == "My team never win!"
*No* voting system is perfect, because we all want different things from such a system. For instance, I want to vote for a named person, *not* a party (party list systems are an anathema to me). I quite like there being clear winners. I like to see a manifesto of ideas that might be implemented by the winner, not soe shady back-room coalition deals.
Others might laugh or sneer at those, but I quite like them..
"having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in"
That's rubbish, because unless you're a total party stooge, what you believe in probably does not match a single party.
No once is an arguing for perfection.
As for rubbish arguments, saying that no voting system is perfect means we can't say which in might be more, or less fair is a failure of both rhetoric and logic.
Similarly with which party we might prefer over another.
I'm not arguing for perfection. Neither am I arguing that the current system is 'perfect' - it isn't.
The problem is people not liking the voting system because their team loses. elections cannot be a system where everyone wins - not, at least, in a democracy. And *every* party that looks at reforming the system look to do so for their own advantage, not for what might improve the system.
When talking about a voting system, instead of looking at what advantages me, or my party, we need to look at the fundamental principles and go from there.
Indeed. But your (and others) constant insistence on viewing the critics of the current system as motivated by the interests of "their team" is grating.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
This is a much more interesting Biden quote from that article:
it would be a mistake … for Israel to occupy … Gaza again,” Biden added. “But going in but taking out the extremists — the Hezbollah is up north but Hamas down south — is a necessary requirement.
Biden advocating an invasion of Lebanon (even if he might be right from an Israeli defence point of view) is hardly likely to ease tensions in Northern Israel.
I also suspect he wouldn’t have said it if it hadn’t already been discussed
Edit: rereading it, the “is” is critical. It makes it a statement of fact - equating Hamas to Hezbollah - rather than a suggestion that taking out both is warranted. But it does lay the groundwork for a future northern incursion
This is the thing, I don't think the equating is unjustified. Nor that Hezbollah are not a threat. Just seemed a bit daft for the US president to raise tensions in that way before the Israelis are ready to do whatever they decide.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Possibly forgivable for a first offence. But this was by no means a first offence, he was already on a final warning for his depictions of certain racist stereotypes.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
Given his track record, I bet he's sent some in that are much worse, and he released that one to stem criticism. "See! This is what they didn't like!!!"
He should have gone after the Patel one.
I agree - that was both misogynistic and racist as well as being deeply unfunny
I think Steve Bell is just someone who thinks that (like much of the Left) if the target is someone of the Right then there's no such thing as offensive; you can let your emotions and prejudices run riot - and rightly so.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell claims the cartoon is an homage to one of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. Both cartoons are shown here (who knew cartoonists had their own industry paper?)
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
This is a much more interesting Biden quote from that article:
it would be a mistake … for Israel to occupy … Gaza again,” Biden added. “But going in but taking out the extremists — the Hezbollah is up north but Hamas down south — is a necessary requirement.
Biden advocating an invasion of Lebanon (even if he might be right from an Israeli defence point of view) is hardly likely to ease tensions in Northern Israel.
I also suspect he wouldn’t have said it if it hadn’t already been discussed
Edit: rereading it, the “is” is critical. It makes it a statement of fact - equating Hamas to Hezbollah - rather than a suggestion that taking out both is warranted. But it does lay the groundwork for a future northern incursion
This is the thing, I don't think the equating is unjustified. Nor that Hezbollah are not a threat. Just seemed a bit daft for the US president to raise tensions in that way before the Israelis are ready to do whatever they decide.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
This is a much more interesting Biden quote from that article:
it would be a mistake … for Israel to occupy … Gaza again,” Biden added. “But going in but taking out the extremists — the Hezbollah is up north but Hamas down south — is a necessary requirement.
Biden advocating an invasion of Lebanon (even if he might be right from an Israeli defence point of view) is hardly likely to ease tensions in Northern Israel.
I also suspect he wouldn’t have said it if it hadn’t already been discussed
Edit: rereading it, the “is” is critical. It makes it a statement of fact - equating Hamas to Hezbollah - rather than a suggestion that taking out both is warranted. But it does lay the groundwork for a future northern incursion
This is the thing, I don't think the equating is unjustified. Nor that Hezbollah are not a threat. Just seemed a bit daft for the US president to raise tensions in that way before the Israelis are ready to do whatever they decide.
Perhaps they have already decided.
Yes I am sure they probably have. Lets say rather, before they actually do it.
I’m pretty relaxed about the risk of Middle East escalation this morning. Biden finally did something right by moving in two carrier groups and the Iranians seem to have blinked. It will be a humanitarian catastrophe of course but the risk of open warfare between the US and Iran has hopefully slipped a bit now.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
"The voting system we use is crooked" == "My team never win!"
*No* voting system is perfect, because we all want different things from such a system. For instance, I want to vote for a named person, *not* a party (party list systems are an anathema to me). I quite like there being clear winners. I like to see a manifesto of ideas that might be implemented by the winner, not soe shady back-room coalition deals.
Others might laugh or sneer at those, but I quite like them..
"having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in"
That's rubbish, because unless you're a total party stooge, what you believe in probably does not match a single party.
No once is an arguing for perfection.
As for rubbish arguments, saying that no voting system is perfect means we can't say which in might be more, or less fair is a failure of both rhetoric and logic.
Similarly with which party we might prefer over another.
I'm not arguing for perfection. Neither am I arguing that the current system is 'perfect' - it isn't.
The problem is people not liking the voting system because their team loses. elections cannot be a system where everyone wins - not, at least, in a democracy. And *every* party that looks at reforming the system look to do so for their own advantage, not for what might improve the system.
When talking about a voting system, instead of looking at what advantages me, or my party, we need to look at the fundamental principles and go from there.
Current system is fixed and one the the two cheeks of the arse that are Labour and Tory get alternate chances to F**k the country over with a minority of the vote. ONly an outright moron would defend it.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell claims the cartoon is an homage to one of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. Both cartoons are shown here (who knew cartoonists had their own industry paper?)
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
All I saw was the “pound of flesh” connotation. If I squint, I can see where you are coming from, but he ought to have known the main link would be to the “pound of flesh” reference and not submitted the idea.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
Once we get to the stage where the government/police decide who and what can be protested about we are in serious trouble. It si a shithole as it is without turning it into a police state.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
"The voting system we use is crooked" == "My team never win!"
*No* voting system is perfect, because we all want different things from such a system. For instance, I want to vote for a named person, *not* a party (party list systems are an anathema to me). I quite like there being clear winners. I like to see a manifesto of ideas that might be implemented by the winner, not soe shady back-room coalition deals.
Others might laugh or sneer at those, but I quite like them..
"having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in"
That's rubbish, because unless you're a total party stooge, what you believe in probably does not match a single party.
No once is an arguing for perfection.
As for rubbish arguments, saying that no voting system is perfect means we can't say which in might be more, or less fair is a failure of both rhetoric and logic.
Similarly with which party we might prefer over another.
I'm not arguing for perfection. Neither am I arguing that the current system is 'perfect' - it isn't.
The problem is people not liking the voting system because their team loses. elections cannot be a system where everyone wins - not, at least, in a democracy. And *every* party that looks at reforming the system look to do so for their own advantage, not for what might improve the system.
When talking about a voting system, instead of looking at what advantages me, or my party, we need to look at the fundamental principles and go from there.
Indeed. But your (and others) constant insistence on viewing the critics of the current system as motivated by the interests of "their team" is grating.
I don't insist on viewing it that way - but if they say that a certain system is best/better, it'd be good to see their working for why they think it's best/better.
Korea's immigration agency plan stuck in limbo https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=361170 ...According to a report submitted by the Ministry of Justice to Rep. Park Yong-jin of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), the immigration policy committee has not convened a single meeting since its initial appointment ceremony on Nov. 25, 2022.
The initiative to establish an immigration agency, a key promise of President Yoon Seok Yeol, gained traction after Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon mentioned it in his inaugural speech on May 17, 2022.
As Korea's immigrant population steadily expands ― at 2.24 million as of 2022, or 4.37 percent of the total population ― the need for an immigration agency has become apparent...
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell claims the cartoon is an homage to one of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. Both cartoons are shown here (who knew cartoonists had their own industry paper?)
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
On the Bell cartoons. They were never funny. They were always supposed to be an angry rant.
I think his problem is that, due to the modern doctrine of punching up/down, he feels unable to criticise racist speech from minority groups in his presence. Without that push back, he is getting immersed in some nasty stuff.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell claims the cartoon is an homage to one of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. Both cartoons are shown here (who knew cartoonists had their own industry paper?)
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
On the Bell cartoons. They were never funny. They were always supposed to be an angry rant.
I think his problem is that, due to the modern doctrine of punching up/down, he feels unable to criticise racist speech from minority groups in his presence. Without that push back, he is getting immersed in some nasty stuff.
The woke/PC spineless wan**rs have stiffed him. This country lurches closer and closer to being China II, luckily they cannot afford the number of cameras and tame police that they can.
I’m pretty relaxed about the risk of Middle East escalation this morning. Biden finally did something right by moving in two carrier groups and the Iranians seem to have blinked. It will be a humanitarian catastrophe of course but the risk of open warfare between the US and Iran has hopefully slipped a bit now.
You’re a little blasé about “humanitarian catastrophe” there, sport
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell claims the cartoon is an homage to one of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. Both cartoons are shown here (who knew cartoonists had their own industry paper?)
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
All I saw was the “pound of flesh” connotation. If I squint, I can see where you are coming from, but he ought to have known the main link would be to the “pound of flesh” reference and not submitted the idea.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
Once we get to the stage where the government/police decide who and what can be protested about we are in serious trouble. It si a shithole as it is without turning it into a police state.
I would apply different criteria to a platform speaker (incitement) to a random Joe in the crowd
I have had conversations with charity collectors which represented the treatment of diseases I was extremely eager to contribute money to, but could not because I refuse to transfer money online. I even offered to just give them a tenner just for being good people, but they refused to take it. It's bloody annoying.
Refusing to take cash donations is ridiculous.
Why? Handling cash is expensive, time consuming and risky. Most people don’t bother with the stuff. Why should businesses/charities accept it? It’s a complete pain in the arse to handle. And pointless. Just use contactless. Easy.
I used cash in my local Aldi and the corner shop today
Why?
Why not?
Morning all.
Donate cash in a charity shop.
If you purchase some Dame Barbara Cartland's and take them off the market you get good deed double bubble.
Or get some bath salts for your significant other (if you don't want to be left smelling of roses for the next 3 months).
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell claims the cartoon is an homage to one of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. Both cartoons are shown here (who knew cartoonists had their own industry paper?)
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
All I saw was the “pound of flesh” connotation. If I squint, I can see where you are coming from, but he ought to have known the main link would be to the “pound of flesh” reference and not submitted the idea.
Explain the link to Shylock for me?
I mean, he’s literally in the process of removing a pound of flesh. His own, wearing boxing gloves, and there is the “joke”. You might not have seen that but almost everyone else did.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
Once we get to the stage where the government/police decide who and what can be protested about we are in serious trouble. It si a shithole as it is without turning it into a police state.
I would apply different criteria to a platform speaker (incitement) to a random Joe in the crowd
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell claims the cartoon is an homage to one of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. Both cartoons are shown here (who knew cartoonists had their own industry paper?)
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
All I saw was the “pound of flesh” connotation. If I squint, I can see where you are coming from, but he ought to have known the main link would be to the “pound of flesh” reference and not submitted the idea.
Explain the link to Shylock for me?
I mean, he’s literally in the process of removing a pound of flesh. His own, wearing boxing gloves, and there is the “joke”. You might not have seen that but almost everyone else did.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
You’re all over thinking it. The voting system we use is crooked, pressuring people into invidious choices like this rather than simply having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in, and fairly representing the outcome. Labour has done has much almost as the Tories to keep this crooked system in place. So can’t complain.
"The voting system we use is crooked" == "My team never win!"
*No* voting system is perfect, because we all want different things from such a system. For instance, I want to vote for a named person, *not* a party (party list systems are an anathema to me). I quite like there being clear winners. I like to see a manifesto of ideas that might be implemented by the winner, not soe shady back-room coalition deals.
Others might laugh or sneer at those, but I quite like them..
"having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in"
That's rubbish, because unless you're a total party stooge, what you believe in probably does not match a single party.
No once is an arguing for perfection.
As for rubbish arguments, saying that no voting system is perfect means we can't say which in might be more, or less fair is a failure of both rhetoric and logic.
Similarly with which party we might prefer over another.
I'm not arguing for perfection. Neither am I arguing that the current system is 'perfect' - it isn't.
The problem is people not liking the voting system because their team loses. elections cannot be a system where everyone wins - not, at least, in a democracy. And *every* party that looks at reforming the system look to do so for their own advantage, not for what might improve the system.
When talking about a voting system, instead of looking at what advantages me, or my party, we need to look at the fundamental principles and go from there.
Current system is fixed and one the the two cheeks of the arse that are Labour and Tory get alternate chances to F**k the country over with a minority of the vote. ONly an outright moron would defend it.
I'm not defending FPTP. But there's an important point here: change can make things worse.
If you want to change something to fix it, fair enough. But first, you need to work out how and why it is failing (i.e. what needs fixing), and what you want the replacement to do, and only then can you start thinking about what that replacement should be.
I also dislike the idea that there's a 'perfect' electoral system. Any system will have flaws; and more importantly, given time politicians and political parties will find ways to exploit those flaws.
I’m pretty relaxed about the risk of Middle East escalation this morning. Biden finally did something right by moving in two carrier groups and the Iranians seem to have blinked. It will be a humanitarian catastrophe of course but the risk of open warfare between the US and Iran has hopefully slipped a bit now.
You’re a little blasé about “humanitarian catastrophe” there, sport
Lots of Israelis and Palestinians are likely to die in the next few weeks and it doesn’t seem like much can be done to stop that. But if proper deterrence and communication has been applied to stop this spiralling into a direct fight between the great powers then that is to be applauded
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell claims the cartoon is an homage to one of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. Both cartoons are shown here (who knew cartoonists had their own industry paper?)
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
On the Bell cartoons. They were never funny. They were always supposed to be an angry rant.
I think his problem is that, due to the modern doctrine of punching up/down, he feels unable to criticise racist speech from minority groups in his presence. Without that push back, he is getting immersed in some nasty stuff.
The woke/PC spineless wan**rs have stiffed him. This country lurches closer and closer to being China II, luckily they cannot afford the number of cameras and tame police that they can.
An interesting question would be which country out of China and the UK has the most CCTV cameras per head.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell claims the cartoon is an homage to one of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. Both cartoons are shown here (who knew cartoonists had their own industry paper?)
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
All I saw was the “pound of flesh” connotation. If I squint, I can see where you are coming from, but he ought to have known the main link would be to the “pound of flesh” reference and not submitted the idea.
I agree that the cartoon isn't very clear in its semiotics - the boxing gloves, the scalpel and the angle make the reference to the LBJ cartoon fuzzy. I would say, though, that lots of satirical cartooning does, unfortunately, rely on tropes and many tropes are inherently anti-Semitic. Looking at the original LBJ cartoon there is no way that caricature nose does not also have other connotations that Bell clearly didn't want to infer.
Trying to read the cartoon is interesting, though. Netanyahu promised a surgical removal of Hamas, which is clearly being referenced here. The boxing gloves obviously denote Netanyahu as being a pugilistic and aggressive politician (something I think Bell has put on Bibi before). Even the pound of flesh connotations could be interesting - obviously in this cartoon Netanyahu is doing this to himself not the Christian "victim" of the Shakespeare play - and could be a reference to how the current conflict is a self inflicted wound of Netanyahu's, something that is a pretty widespread view in Israel itself if the papers and polling happening there are anything to go by.
I am somewhat more surprised by the idea that Bell didn't know what the editor's note of "pound of flesh" was a reference to - either Bell isn't as well read as I would have expected or, as an artist, once you see in your art what you intended it is hard to see what others might think.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell has been missing the mark quite a bit over the last decade. He’s not really ‘nailed’ a PM since Cameron (the rubber johnny Cam was spot on).
Might’ve been time to move on anyway tbh. Sometimes employers are just waiting for the right excuse (cf Danny Baker at the BBC).
This is a much more interesting Biden quote from that article:
it would be a mistake … for Israel to occupy … Gaza again,” Biden added. “But going in but taking out the extremists — the Hezbollah is up north but Hamas down south — is a necessary requirement.
Biden advocating an invasion of Lebanon (even if he might be right from an Israeli defence point of view) is hardly likely to ease tensions in Northern Israel.
I also suspect he wouldn’t have said it if it hadn’t already been discussed
Edit: rereading it, the “is” is critical. It makes it a statement of fact - equating Hamas to Hezbollah - rather than a suggestion that taking out both is warranted. But it does lay the groundwork for a future northern incursion
This is the thing, I don't think the equating is unjustified. Nor that Hezbollah are not a threat. Just seemed a bit daft for the US president to raise tensions in that way before the Israelis are ready to do whatever they decide.
Perhaps they have already decided.
Hezbollah is I think far more formidable than Hamas, estimated by the USA to be receiving $700 billion per annum from Iran back in 2018, and $100 million per annum back in 2005.
That's why I don't see a long-term way out of this that will hold; it is in the interest of some actors in the region, who also place a low value of human life of their own side or the other side, to maintain the conflict.
That is another version of the point made for half a century that Arab Governments had an interest in keeping Palestinian refugees, or 'refugees' depending on your view, stateless and in camps.
I'd say that this will only be resolved when most of the Middle East is no longer a basket case. I have no idea how that would happen. A significantly declining birth rate is perhaps a small sign.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell claims the cartoon is an homage to one of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. Both cartoons are shown here (who knew cartoonists had their own industry paper?)
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
On the Bell cartoons. They were never funny. They were always supposed to be an angry rant.
I think his problem is that, due to the modern doctrine of punching up/down, he feels unable to criticise racist speech from minority groups in his presence. Without that push back, he is getting immersed in some nasty stuff.
The woke/PC spineless wan**rs have stiffed him. This country lurches closer and closer to being China II, luckily they cannot afford the number of cameras and tame police that they can.
An interesting question would be which country out of China and the UK has the most CCTV cameras per head.
UK - since the Blair years, right? The UK loves CCTV - I imagine more for the belief that being watched makes people behave and a semi-Foucault idea of the Panopticon rather than the amount of useful data actually harvested.
"Stats for Lefties 🏳️⚧️ 🇵🇸 @LeftieStats 🚨 NEW: A Stroud councillor has quit Labour after Starmer said Israel has the right to withhold water and power from Gaza.
In 2021, Labour had 15 councillors in Stroud. 11 of these (73%) have since left Labour in opposition to Starmer, costing Labour the council leadership."
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
"Stats for Lefties 🏳️⚧️ 🇵🇸 @LeftieStats 🚨 NEW: A Stroud councillor has quit Labour after Starmer said Israel has the right to withhold water and power from Gaza.
In 2021, Labour had 15 councillors in Stroud. 11 of these (73%) have since left Labour in opposition to Starmer, costing Labour the council leadership."
Starmer is making the choice that losing the left flank is either acceptable or won't happen come the GE in an attempt to appeal to the centre. That potentially sets him up well to win more seats - but will make his government unpopular. If he has already lost Labour's base of support then they will be less likely to support the Labour government, typically LD or Tory voters "lending" their vote will likely return "home" if displeased, and the waivers in the middle will only stay with Starmer for as long as they feel the Tories deserve to be punished.
The voting system isn't crooked, everyone starts each election with zero votes and then the voters decide. Just put forward what you believe in and convince the most voters to back you. If you can't do that, take some responsibility for your own actions.
And Labour and Lib Dems aren't interchangeable. If they were, they'd be the same party not two very different ones.
FWIW my view is that the LibDems were wrong to target the seat and even now should ease off since it's really clear they're not in a position to win and they're simply increasing the chance that the Tories will hold the seat.
But to respond to your point, after talking to hundreds of voters over the weekend, it's clear that most voters don't see the parties as different in any significant way, and the appeals for tactical voting strengthen that perception (nobody asks for tactical votes from Reform UK, do they?). That might be a mistake - after all, we can all point to policy differences - but they elude the only vaguely engaged voter. After Starmer's move to the centre, and the general perception that the LibDems (and even, bizarrely, the Corbynite Greens) are centrists, what floating voters see is three similar parties squabbling, and it annoys them. In some cases it even means they don't vote for any of us.
I'm not actually arguing against tactical voting. But it would be good if the non-Tory parties agreed on some basic principles which respect the right of every party to make an effort:
1. The party that sees itself in the best position in win should use phrases like ". The Tories are [usual criticisms]. If you want to vote tactically to get them out, lend us your vote because ...". Don't use voodoo polls or disproportionate bar charts.
2. If a party can see that they're not in a position to win, they should argue for a positive vote. "You only get the chance to say how you think the country should be run every 4-5 years. Don't waste your vote on parochial and negative tactical voting, vote positively for us because..."
You'll still see parties who both think they can win adopting the first strategy, but put like that it avoids actually pissing everyone off, including the voters who we're all trying to impress.
This is a much more interesting Biden quote from that article:
it would be a mistake … for Israel to occupy … Gaza again,” Biden added. “But going in but taking out the extremists — the Hezbollah is up north but Hamas down south — is a necessary requirement.
Biden advocating an invasion of Lebanon (even if he might be right from an Israeli defence point of view) is hardly likely to ease tensions in Northern Israel.
I also suspect he wouldn’t have said it if it hadn’t already been discussed
Edit: rereading it, the “is” is critical. It makes it a statement of fact - equating Hamas to Hezbollah - rather than a suggestion that taking out both is warranted. But it does lay the groundwork for a future northern incursion
This is the thing, I don't think the equating is unjustified. Nor that Hezbollah are not a threat. Just seemed a bit daft for the US president to raise tensions in that way before the Israelis are ready to do whatever they decide.
Perhaps they have already decided.
Hezbollah is I think far more formidable than Hamas, estimated by the USA to be receiving $700 billion per annum from Iran back in 2018, and $100 million per annum back in 2005.
That's why I don't see a long-term way out of this that will hold; it is in the interest of some actors in the region, who also place a low value of human life of their own side or the other side, to maintain the conflict.
That is another version of the point made for half a century that Arab Governments had an interest in keeping Palestinian refugees, or 'refugees' depending on your view, stateless and in camps.
I'd say that this will only be resolved when most of the Middle East is no longer a basket case. I have no idea how that would happen. A significantly declining birth rate is perhaps a small sign.
Found a chart (decline from 7 in 1965 to 2.7 in 2020):
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell claims the cartoon is an homage to one of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. Both cartoons are shown here (who knew cartoonists had their own industry paper?)
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
All I saw was the “pound of flesh” connotation. If I squint, I can see where you are coming from, but he ought to have known the main link would be to the “pound of flesh” reference and not submitted the idea.
Explain the link to Shylock for me?
I mean, he’s literally in the process of removing a pound of flesh. His own, wearing boxing gloves, and there is the “joke”. You might not have seen that but almost everyone else did.
He’s not removing his own flesh but someone else’s.
It’s a contrast between an anticipated heavy handed response (boxing gloves) and the claimed targeted strike (scalpel) at Hamas in Gaza
There have been so many anti-Semitic phrases and stories in Western history (Shylock is known to modern audiences from Shakespeare) that you are essentially saying any criticism is off limits.
If there has been any reference to weight - scales for example - then you would have a point t, but I don’t see it on this occasion
(To be clear I find Bell unfunny and unpleasant. He sails very close to the wind and has frequently crossed the line so I have little sympathy for him)
An interesting question would be which country out of China and the UK has the most CCTV cameras per head.
UK - since the Blair years, right? The UK loves CCTV - I imagine more for the belief that being watched makes people behave and a semi-Foucault idea of the Panopticon rather than the amount of useful data actually harvested.
I'm going to cynically suggest that we love CCTV because it is the cheapskating approach to the problem of crime; as with so many other things, heaven forbid we actually invest thought and resources in tackling an issue seriously.
Comments
I'm not awaiting.
I'm ignoring for my mental health.
Don’t get why anyone would bother with it.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful. It's just utopian thinking to expect people and parties to act in unity like that.
Edit: Funnily enough with all this talk of game theory I was in fact just watching a video on a youtube channel @Gametheory101 (though the topic was not, in fact, about game theory).
But then again that applies to pretty much every actor in this quagmire.
G’night.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/15/guardian-cartoonist-steve-bell-anti-semitic-netanyahu/
@shaunwalker7
·
2h
I asked Barbara Nowacka, Civic Coalition MP, what an opposition win would mean for Polish women:
"Safety. Finally safety. Young women won't be afraid to get pregnant, young women won't be afraid to go to the doctor."
The true picture of A&E waiting times in Wales has been seriously under-reported for a decade, the BBC can reveal. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) has established thousands of hours are missed from monthly figures.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-67056279
And Abraham came near and said, “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You...
Hamas already "slew the righteous", or at least the innocent. But regardless of whether you think Hamas is evil, which I do, Israel has the capacity to wreak 100 times as much destruction.
That would be a blow to the government, which called the referendum and included questions on the EU’s migration policies, among other issues. The exit poll for the elections also indicates that the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has lost power.
Whereas turnout for the elections was a record high of 72.9%, according to pollster Ipsos, for the referendum it was only 40%. For a referendum to be binding, the figure must be above 50%. The official results are expected to be confirmed by Tuesday at the latest."
https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/10/15/exit-poll-polish-governments-referendum-invalidated-by-low-turnout/
For instance:-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1824049/cenotaph-palestinian-protest-mps-fury-israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine
The life expectancy at birth is about 75 years, and the total fertility rate is about 4, which is especially striking considering Gaza is almost entirely urban.
The net migration rate was estimated at -5/1000 in 2018, so a significant number of people are able to leave. (Or, at least, were.)
Unemployment is terribly high, so I assume many there are living on handouts from Qatar, and similar nations.
(Possibly significant: The population is almost entirley Sunni Muslim -- unlike Iran.)
It is always done years in advance.
RWC 2019 - draw done on 10 May 2017
RWC 2015 - draw done on 3 December 2012
RWC 2011 - draw done in December 2008
There will obviously be calls for significant change next time.
(a) Less illegal immigration
(b) Less corruption
(c) Closer ties to the EU
But he won for pretty much exactly the same reason that oppositions are winning worldwide: the cost of living.
For the first time in 30 years, people are seeing disposable income severely squeezed by inflation. Most voters have never experienced it before, and they're not happy.
Whether left wing or right wing, governments are in trouble.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4257650-biden-says-occupation-of-gaza-by-israel-is-big-mistake/
Well I never.
*No* voting system is perfect, because we all want different things from such a system. For instance, I want to vote for a named person, *not* a party (party list systems are an anathema to me). I quite like there being clear winners. I like to see a manifesto of ideas that might be implemented by the winner, not soe shady back-room coalition deals.
Others might laugh or sneer at those, but I quite like them..
"having everyone to vote for who or what they believe in"
That's rubbish, because unless you're a total party stooge, what you believe in probably does not match a single party.
As for rubbish arguments, saying that no voting system is perfect means we can't say which in might be more, or less fair is a failure of both rhetoric and logic.
Similarly with which party we might prefer over another.
https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1713653332898947122?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
The problem is people not liking the voting system because their team loses. elections cannot be a system where everyone wins - not, at least, in a democracy. And *every* party that looks at reforming the system look to do so for their own advantage, not for what might improve the system.
When talking about a voting system, instead of looking at what advantages me, or my party, we need to look at the fundamental principles and go from there.
And Labour and Lib Dems aren't interchangeable. If they were, they'd be the same party not two very different ones.
'Directly' also covers a multitude of sins.
I suspect it's more a ploy so that when Israel hit them with missiles they can pose as the victim.
I wonder if the Guardian have been paying Employers National Insurance etc on his employment the whole time he's been employed, or if they've been engaging in tax avoidance?
You disagree with FPTP. Fine.
But it’s not “crooked”.
You would prefer an alternative that would be better for your preferred party. Fine.
But don’t cast doubt on the legitimacy of the current system.
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
But presumably he has 6 months notice on his contract even if an independent contractor
it would be a mistake … for Israel to occupy … Gaza again,” Biden added. “But going in but taking out the extremists — the Hezbollah is up north but Hamas down south — is a necessary requirement.
He should have gone after the Patel one.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Edit: rereading it, the “is” is critical. It makes it a statement of geographical fact as well as equating Hamas to Hezbollah (which may be relevant from a US public perspective). It’s technically not a suggestion that taking out both is warranted, although it does lay the groundwork for a future northern incursion
But your (and others) constant insistence on viewing the critics of the current system as motivated by the interests of "their team" is grating.
https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2023/10/11/the-guardian-rejects-steve-bell-cartoon-2/
LBJ bears the political scars of Vietnam
Netenyahu is claiming to be orchestrating a “surgical strike” on Hamas but his boxing mentality means that the damage can’t be restricted to the target
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
Study shows widespread concern over quality of managers, with 82% of bosses deemed ‘accidental’, having had no formal training
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/15/bad-management-has-prompted-one-in-three-uk-workers-to-quit-survey-finds
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=361170
...According to a report submitted by the Ministry of Justice to Rep. Park Yong-jin of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), the immigration policy committee has not convened a single meeting since its initial appointment ceremony on Nov. 25, 2022.
The initiative to establish an immigration agency, a key promise of President Yoon Seok Yeol, gained traction after Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon mentioned it in his inaugural speech on May 17, 2022.
As Korea's immigrant population steadily expands ― at 2.24 million as of 2022, or 4.37 percent of the total population ― the need for an immigration agency has become apparent...
I think his problem is that, due to the modern doctrine of punching up/down, he feels unable to criticise racist speech from minority groups in his presence. Without that push back, he is getting immersed in some nasty stuff.
Nobody can agree who shot the last one.
Donate cash in a charity shop.
If you purchase some Dame Barbara Cartland's and take them off the market you get good deed double bubble.
Or get some bath salts for your significant other (if you don't want to be left smelling of roses for the next 3 months).
If you want to change something to fix it, fair enough. But first, you need to work out how and why it is failing (i.e. what needs fixing), and what you want the replacement to do, and only then can you start thinking about what that replacement should be.
I also dislike the idea that there's a 'perfect' electoral system. Any system will have flaws; and more importantly, given time politicians and political parties will find ways to exploit those flaws.
Trying to read the cartoon is interesting, though. Netanyahu promised a surgical removal of Hamas, which is clearly being referenced here. The boxing gloves obviously denote Netanyahu as being a pugilistic and aggressive politician (something I think Bell has put on Bibi before). Even the pound of flesh connotations could be interesting - obviously in this cartoon Netanyahu is doing this to himself not the Christian "victim" of the Shakespeare play - and could be a reference to how the current conflict is a self inflicted wound of Netanyahu's, something that is a pretty widespread view in Israel itself if the papers and polling happening there are anything to go by.
I am somewhat more surprised by the idea that Bell didn't know what the editor's note of "pound of flesh" was a reference to - either Bell isn't as well read as I would have expected or, as an artist, once you see in your art what you intended it is hard to see what others might think.
Might’ve been time to move on anyway tbh. Sometimes employers are just waiting for the right excuse (cf Danny Baker at the BBC).
That's why I don't see a long-term way out of this that will hold; it is in the interest of some actors in the region, who also place a low value of human life of their own side or the other side, to maintain the conflict.
That is another version of the point made for half a century that Arab Governments had an interest in keeping Palestinian refugees, or 'refugees' depending on your view, stateless and in camps.
I'd say that this will only be resolved when most of the Middle East is no longer a basket case. I have no idea how that would happen. A significantly declining birth rate is perhaps a small sign.
"Stats for Lefties 🏳️⚧️ 🇵🇸
@LeftieStats
🚨 NEW: A Stroud councillor has quit Labour after Starmer said Israel has the right to withhold water and power from Gaza.
In 2021, Labour had 15 councillors in Stroud. 11 of these (73%) have since left Labour in opposition to Starmer, costing Labour the council leadership."
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1713574208477839466
But to respond to your point, after talking to hundreds of voters over the weekend, it's clear that most voters don't see the parties as different in any significant way, and the appeals for tactical voting strengthen that perception (nobody asks for tactical votes from Reform UK, do they?). That might be a mistake - after all, we can all point to policy differences - but they elude the only vaguely engaged voter. After Starmer's move to the centre, and the general perception that the LibDems (and even, bizarrely, the Corbynite Greens) are centrists, what floating voters see is three similar parties squabbling, and it annoys them. In some cases it even means they don't vote for any of us.
I'm not actually arguing against tactical voting. But it would be good if the non-Tory parties agreed on some basic principles which respect the right of every party to make an effort:
1. The party that sees itself in the best position in win should use phrases like ". The Tories are [usual criticisms]. If you want to vote tactically to get them out, lend us your vote because ...". Don't use voodoo polls or disproportionate bar charts.
2. If a party can see that they're not in a position to win, they should argue for a positive vote. "You only get the chance to say how you think the country should be run every 4-5 years. Don't waste your vote on parochial and negative tactical voting, vote positively for us because..."
You'll still see parties who both think they can win adopting the first strategy, but put like that it avoids actually pissing everyone off, including the voters who we're all trying to impress.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINMNA
someone else’s.
It’s a contrast between an anticipated heavy handed response (boxing gloves) and the claimed targeted strike (scalpel) at Hamas in Gaza
There have been so many anti-Semitic phrases and stories in Western history (Shylock is known to modern audiences from Shakespeare) that you are essentially saying any criticism is off limits.
If there has been any reference to weight - scales for example - then you would have a point t, but I don’t see it on this occasion
(To be clear I find Bell unfunny and unpleasant. He sails very close to the wind and has frequently crossed the line so I have little sympathy for him)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/the-64-938-27-question-for-bankrupt-birmingham-council-why-did-all-163-school-run-taxi-contracts-over-the-last-three-years-cost-exactly-the-same-authority-faces-new-quiz-over-cab-firm-at-centre-of-11m-over-payment-row/ar-AA1if44j?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=ef55665575ee42dc87de6811a379bbfd&ei=9