There is much betting interest on the date of the next general election. Might it be in May, or November? The one thing we do know is that it can’t be any later than January 2025, because that’s the deadline set by law.
The point, of course, is to avoid bringing matters to a head. What was it the Derryman said about the prospects for the future in 2005? 'I'd say they were indefinite. And maybe even longer than that.'
What annoys me more is we're still paying the fuckers. If they can't be bothered to work, they shouldn't be getting cash.
(Speaking of which, haven't they been postponed until February 2025?)
And yet nothing he has said there ought to be controversial...
... should it?
Indeed, one of the reasons I am a Thatcherite is this quote from the Iron Lady.
‘The legal system we have and the rule of law are far more responsible for our traditional liberties than any system of one man one vote. Any country or government which wants to proceed towards tyranny starts to undermine legal rights and undermine the law.’
Kemi Badenoch is a member of a Conservative WhatsApp group called “Evil Plotters” despite telling party rebels to “stop messing around” and get behind Rishi Sunak, the Guardian can reveal.
The business secretary, who consistently comes out as the favourite cabinet minister in polls of Tory members, has criticised party colleagues for “stirring” up suggestions that she could replace the prime minister.
In a round of broadcast interviews on Sunday, she dismissed speculation over the plot to topple Sunak as “Westminster tittle-tattle” and said colleagues who put her name forward as an alternative were “not my friends”.
However, the Guardian has been told that Badenoch and Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, who is regarded as a key backer, are members of a WhatsApp group of similarly minded Tory MPs who are rallying round the business secretary’s longer-term ambitions.
I’m still completely lost about how she is considered a favourite by party members. I really cannot think of anything memorable about her so far except some rumblings about he being anti-woke.
The party is truly embuggered if that’s all that’s needed to be next leader instead of any substance or high level experience.
She is wooden at best, mostly invisible. No idea what the point of her is.
I wouldn’t describe her as wooden. She’s a confident speaker and polemicist, and more charismatic than most of her Tory peers.
She does strike me as pretty arrogant though. Every time I’ve seen her debating someone in parliament or TV she’s had a bit of a sneery teenage edge to her. I sensed similar at an event where she came to speak.
Kemi Badenoch is an enigma to me. I feel somehow she isn't as stupid as she appears to be, or as the rest of the Conservative stable. In the unlikely event I got a say in the next Tory leader selection, I wouldn't know whether to vote for her.
What is the point of a deadline that is never enforced?
Quite. Is there any strategy here? Just constantly kicking the can doesn't seem to be healing divides.
There are no votes in Northern Ireland, quite literally, for this Government or the one in waiting. They're quite content to leave the place to rot so long as the shooting doesn't start again.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
What is the point of a deadline that is never enforced?
Quite. Is there any strategy here? Just constantly kicking the can doesn't seem to be healing divides.
Yes, the strategy is that Sunak doesn't want to unpick the oven ready Brexit deal any more, so when Starmer becomes PM, he can be accused of betraying Brexit.
EXC: More than 20 serving Tory ministers may vote against or abstain on Sunak’s landmark smoking ban — amid confusion whether throwaway vape ban will also be a free vote
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Better - if NOTA wins, all the previous candidates are barred from the re-run.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
I like that idea. Although, you'd need to have a mechanism to encourage a different result in the re-run. None of the candidates are allowed to stand again? Re-run candidates not allowed to be members of a political party?
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Ah, that reminds me of student politics, where we'd actively campaign for "Ron", i.e. Re-Open Nominations.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Better - if NOTA wins, all the previous candidates are barred from the re-run.
There would (or could) be the slight issue that you have a General Election, and Ron does so well that the Commons has too few members to be sure of who the winner is. Unlikely, I guess, but in these febrile times.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Better - if NOTA wins, all the previous candidates are barred from the re-run.
Now THAT could actively earn abstention votes. And incentivise those who feel as Pagan2 does to have something to vote for with the prospect of actually causing some kind of change. Especially if the losing parties are also banned from the rerun
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I do think it's important to distinguish between "I had better things to do than head down the polling station" and "Getting a good MP is really important, and none of these are up to it".
The addition of Ron to the ballot adds the ability of voters to express their displeasure with the choices they've been offered.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Better - if NOTA wins, all the previous candidates are barred from the re-run.
Now THAT could actively earn abstention votes. And incentivise those who feel as Pagan2 does to have something to vote for with the prospect of actually causing some kind of change. Especially if the losing parties are also banned from the rerun
Hmmm: not quite so sure about that. What if I like the Labour Party, but would never vote for Corbyn?
The current madness in a nutshell. Years of Tory decline.
Nottingham council proposing to close a big park and ride site to save money even though it is the overspill for major regional hospital.
Means loads of people struggling to park when they have appointments will be late and - guess what - yet again the NHS starts to fall over even more than now.
When the fuck in this country are we going to elect politicians and employ civil servants who understand joined up, long term thinking and strategy and not their own little silo??
Have we heard from any more generals, of the armchair variety or otherwise, who wish to reward the nation's youth for a lifetime of being treated like excrement with an exciting opportunity to be forcibly imprisoned in mouldy barracks, paid about 37p per week, and then shipped eastwards to be given a one-in-five chance of having their brains blown out by Russian artillery shelling in a trench somewhere near the Latvian border?
If I were some recent graduate with a debt comparable to that of a medium-sized African country being screamed at and brutalised by some bellend of a corporal, I think I'd be more inclined to point my assault rifle in the general direction of my supposed superiors than Vladimir Putin. Them again, some bright spark could always propose that conscription should begin not with blameless twenty somethings but with the various classes of rich parasites in society, who wank themselves silly at the thought of the children of the poor being butchered, just so that they can continued to enjoy their vast, unearned, property speculation derived wealth? That might just put a stop to the flag shagging rhetoric.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I do think it's important to distinguish between "I had better things to do than head down the polling station" and "Getting a good MP is really important, and none of these are up to it".
The addition of Ron to the ballot adds the ability of voters to express their displeasure with the choices they've been offered.
Kemi Badenoch is a member of a Conservative WhatsApp group called “Evil Plotters” despite telling party rebels to “stop messing around” and get behind Rishi Sunak, the Guardian can reveal.
The business secretary, who consistently comes out as the favourite cabinet minister in polls of Tory members, has criticised party colleagues for “stirring” up suggestions that she could replace the prime minister.
In a round of broadcast interviews on Sunday, she dismissed speculation over the plot to topple Sunak as “Westminster tittle-tattle” and said colleagues who put her name forward as an alternative were “not my friends”.
However, the Guardian has been told that Badenoch and Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, who is regarded as a key backer, are members of a WhatsApp group of similarly minded Tory MPs who are rallying round the business secretary’s longer-term ambitions.
I’m still completely lost about how she is considered a favourite by party members. I really cannot think of anything memorable about her so far except some rumblings about he being anti-woke.
The party is truly embuggered if that’s all that’s needed to be next leader instead of any substance or high level experience.
She is wooden at best, mostly invisible. No idea what the point of her is.
I wouldn’t describe her as wooden. She’s a confident speaker and polemicist, and more charismatic than most of her Tory peers.
She does strike me as pretty arrogant though. Every time I’ve seen her debating someone in parliament or TV she’s had a bit of a sneery teenage edge to her. I sensed similar at an event where she came to speak.
Kemi Badenoch is an enigma to me. I feel somehow she isn't as stupid as she appears to be, or as the rest of the Conservative stable. In the unlikely event I got a say in the next Tory leader selection, I wouldn't know whether to vote for her.
Unlike many of her colleagues she’s smart enough to know that not saying anything very much at all postpones a reckoning on her stupidity. The kids identifying as cats stuff doesn’t augur well though.
Kemi Badenoch is a member of a Conservative WhatsApp group called “Evil Plotters” despite telling party rebels to “stop messing around” and get behind Rishi Sunak, the Guardian can reveal.
The business secretary, who consistently comes out as the favourite cabinet minister in polls of Tory members, has criticised party colleagues for “stirring” up suggestions that she could replace the prime minister.
In a round of broadcast interviews on Sunday, she dismissed speculation over the plot to topple Sunak as “Westminster tittle-tattle” and said colleagues who put her name forward as an alternative were “not my friends”.
However, the Guardian has been told that Badenoch and Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, who is regarded as a key backer, are members of a WhatsApp group of similarly minded Tory MPs who are rallying round the business secretary’s longer-term ambitions.
I’m still completely lost about how she is considered a favourite by party members. I really cannot think of anything memorable about her so far except some rumblings about he being anti-woke.
The party is truly embuggered if that’s all that’s needed to be next leader instead of any substance or high level experience.
She is wooden at best, mostly invisible. No idea what the point of her is.
I wouldn’t describe her as wooden. She’s a confident speaker and polemicist, and more charismatic than most of her Tory peers.
She does strike me as pretty arrogant though. Every time I’ve seen her debating someone in parliament or TV she’s had a bit of a sneery teenage edge to her. I sensed similar at an event where she came to speak.
Kemi Badenoch is an enigma to me. I feel somehow she isn't as stupid as she appears to be, or as the rest of the Conservative stable. In the unlikely event I got a say in the next Tory leader selection, I wouldn't know whether to vote for her.
I have a small but real hope that she will be the Tory Starmer - become leader by saying the right things for the members and then return to some sort of centrism.
What was that on the previous thread about Jan 6 subpoenas to Congress? Didn't really understand it.
Federal grand jury, at request of Department of Justice, has issued subpoenas for documents pertaining to Jan 6, to US House of Representatives sergeant at arms.
So you've got all three branches of the federal government involved! Most especially the Speaker of the House.
The current madness in a nutshell. Years of Tory decline.
Nottingham council proposing to close a big park and ride site to save money even though it is the overspill for major regional hospital.
Means loads of people struggling to park when they have appointments will be late and - guess what - yet again the NHS starts to fall over even more than now.
When the fuck in this country are we going to elect politicians and employ civil servants who understand joined up, long term thinking and strategy and not their own little silo??
That is exactly the problem at our hospital here in North Wales with park and ride stopped a couple of years ago and the car parks during the day full
The hospital is planning a multi storey car park sometime in the future but on each occasion I have had to go to the hospital I have had either my son or daughter drive me and my wife for my appointments
I was told to park on yellow lines or disabled parking spaces as the hospital does not enforce any of these breaches
And Labour has been in power in the Senedd continuously since it's inception in 1999
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I do think it's important to distinguish between "I had better things to do than head down the polling station" and "Getting a good MP is really important, and none of these are up to it".
The addition of Ron to the ballot adds the ability of voters to express their displeasure with the choices they've been offered.
As long as RON is meaningful. I've seen proposals where RON votes are simply ignored, which seems pointless. I have wondered if, for possible House of Lords elections, the turnout figure could drive the number of corss-bencher peers.
(for example - if the Lords had 500 seats, turnout was 65%, and of those 65%, 25 voted Labour, 20 Conservative, 7 Lib Dem, 3 SNP, 3 Green, 3 Reform, 2 Plaid, 2 for other parties, then we'd have:
125 Labour peers 100 Tory Peers 28 Lib Dem peers 12 SNP peers 12 Green peers 12 Reform peers 8 Plaid peers 8 from other parties, and 140 cross-benchers. (Each party would have a sort of "pool" of peers to nominate for each annual session, up to their number of peers from the election)
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I do think it's important to distinguish between "I had better things to do than head down the polling station" and "Getting a good MP is really important, and none of these are up to it".
The addition of Ron to the ballot adds the ability of voters to express their displeasure with the choices they've been offered.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Better - if NOTA wins, all the previous candidates are barred from the re-run.
Now THAT could actively earn abstention votes. And incentivise those who feel as Pagan2 does to have something to vote for with the prospect of actually causing some kind of change. Especially if the losing parties are also banned from the rerun
Hmmm: not quite so sure about that. What if I like the Labour Party, but would never vote for Corbyn?
Problem. (This is where I prefer STV, anyway, where this could be resolved to a degree.)
The point, of course, is to avoid bringing matters to a head. What was it the Derryman said about the prospects for the future in 2005? 'I'd say they were indefinite. And maybe even longer than that.'
What annoys me more is we're still paying the fuckers. If they can't be bothered to work, they shouldn't be getting cash.
(Speaking of which, haven't they been postponed until February 2025?)
"These dissidents who say that they're about bringing about the reunification of Ireland will never reunite Ireland in a million years with the type of approach they're adopting at the moment," McGuinness said.
The current madness in a nutshell. Years of Tory decline.
Nottingham council proposing to close a big park and ride site to save money even though it is the overspill for major regional hospital.
Means loads of people struggling to park when they have appointments will be late and - guess what - yet again the NHS starts to fall over even more than now.
When the fuck in this country are we going to elect politicians and employ civil servants who understand joined up, long term thinking and strategy and not their own little silo??
That is exactly the problem at our hospital here in North Wales with park and ride stopped a couple of years ago and the car parks during the day full
The hospital is planning a multi storey car park sometime in the future but on each occasion I have had to go to the hospital I have had either my son or daughter drive me and my wife for my appointments
I was told to park on yellow lines or disabled parking spaces as the hospital does not enforce any of these breaches
And Labour has been in power in the Senedd continuously since it's inception in 1999
Yes, but for almost all that period the overall WG budget* has been determined by the Conservatives (in coalition with the LDs for 5 years).
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I don't agree wth that at all.
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
The current madness in a nutshell. Years of Tory decline.
Nottingham council proposing to close a big park and ride site to save money even though it is the overspill for major regional hospital.
Means loads of people struggling to park when they have appointments will be late and - guess what - yet again the NHS starts to fall over even more than now.
When the fuck in this country are we going to elect politicians and employ civil servants who understand joined up, long term thinking and strategy and not their own little silo??
That is exactly the problem at our hospital here in North Wales with park and ride stopped a couple of years ago and the car parks during the day full
The hospital is planning a multi storey car park sometime in the future but on each occasion I have had to go to the hospital I have had either my son or daughter drive me and my wife for my appointments
I was told to park on yellow lines or disabled parking spaces as the hospital does not enforce any of these breaches
And Labour has been in power in the Senedd continuously since it's inception in 1999
Yes, but for almost all that period the overall budget has been determined by the Conservatives (in coalition with the LDs for 5 years).
Wales receives £1.20 to every £1.00 in England
And it is how money is spent
Welsh Government's take-it-or-leave-it offer for electric trucks sparks backlash
The current madness in a nutshell. Years of Tory decline.
Nottingham council proposing to close a big park and ride site to save money even though it is the overspill for major regional hospital.
Means loads of people struggling to park when they have appointments will be late and - guess what - yet again the NHS starts to fall over even more than now.
When the fuck in this country are we going to elect politicians and employ civil servants who understand joined up, long term thinking and strategy and not their own little silo??
That is exactly the problem at our hospital here in North Wales with park and ride stopped a couple of years ago and the car parks during the day full
The hospital is planning a multi storey car park sometime in the future but on each occasion I have had to go to the hospital I have had either my son or daughter drive me and my wife for my appointments
I was told to park on yellow lines or disabled parking spaces as the hospital does not enforce any of these breaches
And Labour has been in power in the Senedd continuously since it's inception in 1999
Our previous CEO at my Trust spent several million on a multi-storey carpark at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. He braced himself for abuse for not spending the capital on Cancer/Children etc etc.
He said that it was the most popular decision in his 10 year term, never got anything but thank yous!
The solution to Northern Ireland would be an independence referendum ... in GB.
"England, Wales and Scotland should be an independent country. Yes or No."
Of course, England, Wales and Scotland would be the ones leaving the Union, so that would mean that the remaining entity - Northern Ireland - gets to keep the debt.
We need an NI politics expert on here. I miss the headers from @TheGreenMachine.
My ignorant take is that the DUP refuse to be Deputy First Minister to Sinn Féin, which is the real reason to stop Stormont sitting.
Indeed. First Minister and Deputy First Minister have exactly the same powers, so it shouldn't matter, but it does seem like, Brexit issues aside, the DUP is smarting at coming second.
But what are they going to do about it? They were nearly 8% behind Sinn Fein at last year's local elections. They've been behind SF in every Assembly poll and the solitary general election poll (that's on Wikipedia, at least) since Brexit. What do they think a new Labour government is going to give them that Sunak won't? There are tensions within the DUP about their current strategy.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Better - if NOTA wins, all the previous candidates are barred from the re-run.
Now THAT could actively earn abstention votes. And incentivise those who feel as Pagan2 does to have something to vote for with the prospect of actually causing some kind of change. Especially if the losing parties are also banned from the rerun
Hmmm: not quite so sure about that. What if I like the Labour Party, but would never vote for Corbyn?
Problem. (This is where I prefer STV, anyway, where this could be resolved to a degree.)
I think NOTA, RON could be trivially included in all local and general election ballots. I doubt it'd win a single box tbh. But the option would be there.
The current madness in a nutshell. Years of Tory decline.
Nottingham council proposing to close a big park and ride site to save money even though it is the overspill for major regional hospital.
Means loads of people struggling to park when they have appointments will be late and - guess what - yet again the NHS starts to fall over even more than now.
When the fuck in this country are we going to elect politicians and employ civil servants who understand joined up, long term thinking and strategy and not their own little silo??
That is exactly the problem at our hospital here in North Wales with park and ride stopped a couple of years ago and the car parks during the day full
The hospital is planning a multi storey car park sometime in the future but on each occasion I have had to go to the hospital I have had either my son or daughter drive me and my wife for my appointments
I was told to park on yellow lines or disabled parking spaces as the hospital does not enforce any of these breaches
And Labour has been in power in the Senedd continuously since it's inception in 1999
Our previous CEO at my Trust spent several million on a multi-storey carpark at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. He braced himself for abuse for not spending the capital on Cancer/Children etc etc.
He said that it was the most popular decision in his 10 year term, never got anything but thank yous!
It would be here in North Wales but it needs to happen
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Better - if NOTA wins, all the previous candidates are barred from the re-run.
Now THAT could actively earn abstention votes. And incentivise those who feel as Pagan2 does to have something to vote for with the prospect of actually causing some kind of change. Especially if the losing parties are also banned from the rerun
Hmmm: not quite so sure about that. What if I like the Labour Party, but would never vote for Corbyn?
Problem. (This is where I prefer STV, anyway, where this could be resolved to a degree.)
I think NOTA, RON could be trivially included in all local and general election ballots. I doubt it'd win a single box tbh. But the option would be there.
The solution to Northern Ireland would be an independence referendum ... in GB.
"England, Wales and Scotland should be an independent country. Yes or No."
Of course, England, Wales and Scotland would be the ones leaving the Union, so that would mean that the remaining entity - Northern Ireland - gets to keep the debt.
The current madness in a nutshell. Years of Tory decline.
Nottingham council proposing to close a big park and ride site to save money even though it is the overspill for major regional hospital.
Means loads of people struggling to park when they have appointments will be late and - guess what - yet again the NHS starts to fall over even more than now.
When the fuck in this country are we going to elect politicians and employ civil servants who understand joined up, long term thinking and strategy and not their own little silo??
That is exactly the problem at our hospital here in North Wales with park and ride stopped a couple of years ago and the car parks during the day full
The hospital is planning a multi storey car park sometime in the future but on each occasion I have had to go to the hospital I have had either my son or daughter drive me and my wife for my appointments
I was told to park on yellow lines or disabled parking spaces as the hospital does not enforce any of these breaches
And Labour has been in power in the Senedd continuously since it's inception in 1999
Our previous CEO at my Trust spent several million on a multi-storey carpark at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. He braced himself for abuse for not spending the capital on Cancer/Children etc etc.
He said that it was the most popular decision in his 10 year term, never got anything but thank yous!
It would be here in North Wales but it needs to happen
But hasn't Conwy been under Tory and Independent control for the last 4-5 years? That's when the park and ride stopped - one or the other was controlling it.
We need an NI politics expert on here. I miss the headers from @TheGreenMachine.
My ignorant take is that the DUP refuse to be Deputy First Minister to Sinn Féin, which is the real reason to stop Stormont sitting.
Indeed. First Minister and Deputy First Minister have exactly the same powers, so it shouldn't matter, but it does seem like, Brexit issues aside, the DUP is smarting at coming second.
But what are they going to do about it? They were nearly 8% behind Sinn Fein at last year's local elections. They've been behind SF in every Assembly poll and the solitary general election poll (that's on Wikipedia, at least) since Brexit. What do they think a new Labour government is going to give them that Sunak won't? There are tensions within the DUP about their current strategy.
In fact, I think they are extremely likely to go back into government. They’re meeting about it, as we speak.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I don't agree wth that at all.
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
Two classes of MP.
The former, glorified social workers.
The latter, doing what they should be doing.
I would get rid of the constituency link altogether and just have a pool of MPs who are able to focus on national priorities, world events and the big picture, not the roadworks outside the local primary school or Mrs Smith's noisy neighbours.
The solution to Northern Ireland would be an independence referendum ... in GB.
"England, Wales and Scotland should be an independent country. Yes or No."
Of course, England, Wales and Scotland would be the ones leaving the Union, so that would mean that the remaining entity - Northern Ireland - gets to keep the debt.
The solution to Northern Ireland would be an independence referendum ... in GB.
"England, Wales and Scotland should be an independent country. Yes or No."
Of course, England, Wales and Scotland would be the ones leaving the Union, so that would mean that the remaining entity - Northern Ireland - gets to keep the debt.
The solution to Northern Ireland would be an independence referendum ... in GB.
"England, Wales and Scotland should be an independent country. Yes or No."
Of course, England, Wales and Scotland would be the ones leaving the Union, so that would mean that the remaining entity - Northern Ireland - gets to keep the debt.
The current madness in a nutshell. Years of Tory decline.
Nottingham council proposing to close a big park and ride site to save money even though it is the overspill for major regional hospital.
Means loads of people struggling to park when they have appointments will be late and - guess what - yet again the NHS starts to fall over even more than now.
When the fuck in this country are we going to elect politicians and employ civil servants who understand joined up, long term thinking and strategy and not their own little silo??
That is exactly the problem at our hospital here in North Wales with park and ride stopped a couple of years ago and the car parks during the day full
The hospital is planning a multi storey car park sometime in the future but on each occasion I have had to go to the hospital I have had either my son or daughter drive me and my wife for my appointments
I was told to park on yellow lines or disabled parking spaces as the hospital does not enforce any of these breaches
And Labour has been in power in the Senedd continuously since it's inception in 1999
Our previous CEO at my Trust spent several million on a multi-storey carpark at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. He braced himself for abuse for not spending the capital on Cancer/Children etc etc.
He said that it was the most popular decision in his 10 year term, never got anything but thank yous!
It would be here in North Wales but it needs to happen
But hasn't Conwy been under Tory and Independent control for the last 4-5 years? That's when the park and ride stopped - one or the other was controlling it.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I don't agree wth that at all.
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
Nope; I specifically say that those who don’t vote fall into both categories (those who dislike all and those who can’t be bothered). And also that voting (or recording “no vote”) should never be compulsory or coerced.
RON/NOTA would be welcome as it gives those who dislike all an option. My strong preference is for an STV system, anyway, which gives you the way around your suggested problem.
The current madness in a nutshell. Years of Tory decline.
Nottingham council proposing to close a big park and ride site to save money even though it is the overspill for major regional hospital.
Means loads of people struggling to park when they have appointments will be late and - guess what - yet again the NHS starts to fall over even more than now.
When the fuck in this country are we going to elect politicians and employ civil servants who understand joined up, long term thinking and strategy and not their own little silo??
That is exactly the problem at our hospital here in North Wales with park and ride stopped a couple of years ago and the car parks during the day full
The hospital is planning a multi storey car park sometime in the future but on each occasion I have had to go to the hospital I have had either my son or daughter drive me and my wife for my appointments
I was told to park on yellow lines or disabled parking spaces as the hospital does not enforce any of these breaches
And Labour has been in power in the Senedd continuously since it's inception in 1999
Our previous CEO at my Trust spent several million on a multi-storey carpark at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. He braced himself for abuse for not spending the capital on Cancer/Children etc etc.
He said that it was the most popular decision in his 10 year term, never got anything but thank yous!
It would be here in North Wales but it needs to happen
But hasn't Conwy been under Tory and Independent control for the last 4-5 years? That's when the park and ride stopped - one or the other was controlling it.
The solution to Northern Ireland would be an independence referendum ... in GB.
"England, Wales and Scotland should be an independent country. Yes or No."
Of course, England, Wales and Scotland would be the ones leaving the Union, so that would mean that the remaining entity - Northern Ireland - gets to keep the debt.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I don't agree wth that at all.
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
Two classes of MP.
The former, glorified social workers.
The latter, doing what they should be doing.
I would get rid of the constituency link altogether and just have a pool of MPs who are able to focus on national priorities, world events and the big picture, not the roadworks outside the local primary school or Mrs Smith's noisy neighbours.
Another advantage of STV is that it preserves a form of constituency link but with two key improvements (aside from being proportional):
1. The constituencies are larger so you get more meaningful economic units and less of the really local stuff that should be the focus of (stronger, more devolved) local government, and 2. You get several members, usually from at least 2 parties, meaning you’re not dependent on your one local MP giving a damn or not
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Better - if NOTA wins, all the previous candidates are barred from the re-run.
Now THAT could actively earn abstention votes. And incentivise those who feel as Pagan2 does to have something to vote for with the prospect of actually causing some kind of change. Especially if the losing parties are also banned from the rerun
Hmmm: not quite so sure about that. What if I like the Labour Party, but would never vote for Corbyn?
Problem. (This is where I prefer STV, anyway, where this could be resolved to a degree.)
I think NOTA, RON could be trivially included in all local and general election ballots. I doubt it'd win a single box tbh. But the option would be there.
NOTA got 6.5 MILLION votes at the last Indian election (2019)! 1% of all votes.
The solution to Northern Ireland would be an independence referendum ... in GB.
"England, Wales and Scotland should be an independent country. Yes or No."
Of course, England, Wales and Scotland would be the ones leaving the Union, so that would mean that the remaining entity - Northern Ireland - gets to keep the debt.
And the nukes?
And the seat on the UN Security Council etc
I like that. I think the Northern Irish could do more with that seat than we do.
We need an NI politics expert on here. I miss the headers from @TheGreenMachine.
My ignorant take is that the DUP refuse to be Deputy First Minister to Sinn Féin, which is the real reason to stop Stormont sitting.
Indeed. First Minister and Deputy First Minister have exactly the same powers, so it shouldn't matter, but it does seem like, Brexit issues aside, the DUP is smarting at coming second.
But what are they going to do about it? They were nearly 8% behind Sinn Fein at last year's local elections. They've been behind SF in every Assembly poll and the solitary general election poll (that's on Wikipedia, at least) since Brexit. What do they think a new Labour government is going to give them that Sunak won't? There are tensions within the DUP about their current strategy.
In fact, I think they are extremely likely to go back into government. They’re meeting about it, as we speak.
I see my article had a big impact then!
But, yes, they've been discussing it for a while, although I thought the mood was they'd stick with the boycott. If they do go back into government, that's good news, I think. But what will it do for their vote at the general election? Will it bring back more moderate voters who didn't like the boycott? Maybe it's too late for that. Will it piss off more hardline voters who think the boycott was for nothing? The TUV could repeat their 2019 decision and not stand, reducing the danger to the DUP, but they could still suffer from people voting RON.
The solution to Northern Ireland would be an independence referendum ... in GB.
"England, Wales and Scotland should be an independent country. Yes or No."
Of course, England, Wales and Scotland would be the ones leaving the Union, so that would mean that the remaining entity - Northern Ireland - gets to keep the debt.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 9h We've now had more consecutive polls with the Tories below 30% than at any previous point since regular UK polling began.
Why is he allowed to post from Federal Prison and when did he start showing an interest in U.K. politics? Did any of the shady FTX money get paid as “donations” this side of the pond?
The solution to Northern Ireland would be an independence referendum ... in GB.
"England, Wales and Scotland should be an independent country. Yes or No."
Of course, England, Wales and Scotland would be the ones leaving the Union, so that would mean that the remaining entity - Northern Ireland - gets to keep the debt.
Northern Ireland = British Administered Ireland
Punjab = Indian administered Khalistan
You forgot the Pakistan administered bit (far larger than India's!).
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I don't agree wth that at all.
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
Two classes of MP.
The former, glorified social workers.
The latter, doing what they should be doing.
I would get rid of the constituency link altogether and just have a pool of MPs who are able to focus on national priorities, world events and the big picture, not the roadworks outside the local primary school or Mrs Smith's noisy neighbours.
Another advantage of STV is that it preserves a form of constituency link but with two key improvements (aside from being proportional):
1. The constituencies are larger so you get more meaningful economic units and less of the really local stuff that should be the focus of (stronger, more devolved) local government, and 2. You get several members, usually from at least 2 parties, meaning you’re not dependent on your one local MP giving a damn or not
But it takes 5 days to count the votes and nobody can understand the result.
The report is optimistic, but suggests some hurdles remain. I am sceptical that most DUP or former DUP voters will be that impressed by whatever the deal is.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I don't agree wth that at all.
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
Two classes of MP.
The former, glorified social workers.
The latter, doing what they should be doing.
I would get rid of the constituency link altogether and just have a pool of MPs who are able to focus on national priorities, world events and the big picture, not the roadworks outside the local primary school or Mrs Smith's noisy neighbours.
Another advantage of STV is that it preserves a form of constituency link but with two key improvements (aside from being proportional):
1. The constituencies are larger so you get more meaningful economic units and less of the really local stuff that should be the focus of (stronger, more devolved) local government, and 2. You get several members, usually from at least 2 parties, meaning you’re not dependent on your one local MP giving a damn or not
But it takes 5 days to count the votes and nobody can understand the result.
In the US, it takes more than 5 days to count the FPTP vote (or they call it WTA) and nobody believes the result.
What was that on the previous thread about Jan 6 subpoenas to Congress? Didn't really understand it.
Federal grand jury, at request of Department of Justice, has issued subpoenas for documents pertaining to Jan 6, to US House of Representatives sergeant at arms.
So you've got all three branches of the federal government involved! Most especially the Speaker of the House.
I was very surprised to learn that England & Wales only did away with Grand Juries as recently as the 1920s
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I don't agree wth that at all.
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
Two classes of MP.
The former, glorified social workers.
The latter, doing what they should be doing.
I would get rid of the constituency link altogether and just have a pool of MPs who are able to focus on national priorities, world events and the big picture, not the roadworks outside the local primary school or Mrs Smith's noisy neighbours.
Another advantage of STV is that it preserves a form of constituency link but with two key improvements (aside from being proportional):
1. The constituencies are larger so you get more meaningful economic units and less of the really local stuff that should be the focus of (stronger, more devolved) local government, and 2. You get several members, usually from at least 2 parties, meaning you’re not dependent on your one local MP giving a damn or not
But it takes 5 days to count the votes and nobody can understand the result.
In the US, it takes more than 5 days to count the FPTP vote (or they call it WTA) and nobody believes the result.
Under UK FPTP it has taken 5 years to count the cost.
We need an NI politics expert on here. I miss the headers from @TheGreenMachine.
My ignorant take is that the DUP refuse to be Deputy First Minister to Sinn Féin, which is the real reason to stop Stormont sitting.
Indeed. First Minister and Deputy First Minister have exactly the same powers, so it shouldn't matter, but it does seem like, Brexit issues aside, the DUP is smarting at coming second.
But what are they going to do about it? They were nearly 8% behind Sinn Fein at last year's local elections. They've been behind SF in every Assembly poll and the solitary general election poll (that's on Wikipedia, at least) since Brexit. What do they think a new Labour government is going to give them that Sunak won't? There are tensions within the DUP about their current strategy.
In fact, I think they are extremely likely to go back into government. They’re meeting about it, as we speak.
I see my article had a big impact then!
But, yes, they've been discussing it for a while, although I thought the mood was they'd stick with the boycott. If they do go back into government, that's good news, I think. But what will it do for their vote at the general election? Will it bring back more moderate voters who didn't like the boycott? Maybe it's too late for that. Will it piss off more hardline voters who think the boycott was for nothing? The TUV could repeat their 2019 decision and not stand, reducing the danger to the DUP, but they could still suffer from people voting RON.
Ultimately, a boycott does not help unionists’ overall vote share. Donaldson has restored the DUP polling share from 13% to 28%, and got TUV down to 4%. Now, he’ll want to try winning votes back from Alliance. North Down, East Belfast, Strangford, East Antrim, South Antrim, Lagan Valley, have a huge Alliance vote, most of which is small u unionist.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I don't agree wth that at all.
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
Two classes of MP.
The former, glorified social workers.
The latter, doing what they should be doing.
I would get rid of the constituency link altogether and just have a pool of MPs who are able to focus on national priorities, world events and the big picture, not the roadworks outside the local primary school or Mrs Smith's noisy neighbours.
Another advantage of STV is that it preserves a form of constituency link but with two key improvements (aside from being proportional):
1. The constituencies are larger so you get more meaningful economic units and less of the really local stuff that should be the focus of (stronger, more devolved) local government, and 2. You get several members, usually from at least 2 parties, meaning you’re not dependent on your one local MP giving a damn or not
But it takes 5 days to count the votes and nobody can understand the result.
It took 5 WEEKS for everybody to actually vote in India in 2019 (FPTP). Electronic voting did speed things up on the counting front tho.
What London needs is to rollout a payment system that allows you to “tap and go” with your Oyster card in shops, pubs etc. It would be simplicity to set up a machine that you tap your blue card against to pay for everyday items without carrying cash.
We need an NI politics expert on here. I miss the headers from @TheGreenMachine.
My ignorant take is that the DUP refuse to be Deputy First Minister to Sinn Féin, which is the real reason to stop Stormont sitting.
Indeed. First Minister and Deputy First Minister have exactly the same powers, so it shouldn't matter, but it does seem like, Brexit issues aside, the DUP is smarting at coming second.
But what are they going to do about it? They were nearly 8% behind Sinn Fein at last year's local elections. They've been behind SF in every Assembly poll and the solitary general election poll (that's on Wikipedia, at least) since Brexit. What do they think a new Labour government is going to give them that Sunak won't? There are tensions within the DUP about their current strategy.
In fact, I think they are extremely likely to go back into government. They’re meeting about it, as we speak.
I see my article had a big impact then!
But, yes, they've been discussing it for a while, although I thought the mood was they'd stick with the boycott. If they do go back into government, that's good news, I think. But what will it do for their vote at the general election? Will it bring back more moderate voters who didn't like the boycott? Maybe it's too late for that. Will it piss off more hardline voters who think the boycott was for nothing? The TUV could repeat their 2019 decision and not stand, reducing the danger to the DUP, but they could still suffer from people voting RON.
Ultimately, a boycott does not help unionists’ overall vote share. Donaldson has restored the DUP polling share from 13% to 28%, and got TUV down to 4%. Now, he’ll want to try winning votes back from Alliance. North Down, East Belfast, Strangford, East Antrim, South Antrim, Lagan Valley, have a huge Alliance vote, most of which is small u unionist.
TUV is only really a threat in North Antrim.
The best thing for Alliance, I posit, is a restored Assembly where people can see their greatly increased MLA numbers (more than doubled, leapfrogging the UUP and SDLP). The cat is out of the bag: people see Alliance as a serious force now, not just an afterthought.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I don't agree wth that at all.
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
Two classes of MP.
The former, glorified social workers.
The latter, doing what they should be doing.
I would get rid of the constituency link altogether and just have a pool of MPs who are able to focus on national priorities, world events and the big picture, not the roadworks outside the local primary school or Mrs Smith's noisy neighbours.
Another advantage of STV is that it preserves a form of constituency link but with two key improvements (aside from being proportional):
1. The constituencies are larger so you get more meaningful economic units and less of the really local stuff that should be the focus of (stronger, more devolved) local government, and 2. You get several members, usually from at least 2 parties, meaning you’re not dependent on your one local MP giving a damn or not
But it takes 5 days to count the votes and nobody can understand the result.
It took 5 WEEKS for everybody to actually vote in India in 2019 (FPTP). Electronic voting did speed things up on the counting front tho.
It takes a long time to distribute the bribes before the votes can be harvested.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I don't agree wth that at all.
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
Two classes of MP.
The former, glorified social workers.
The latter, doing what they should be doing.
I would get rid of the constituency link altogether and just have a pool of MPs who are able to focus on national priorities, world events and the big picture, not the roadworks outside the local primary school or Mrs Smith's noisy neighbours.
Another advantage of STV is that it preserves a form of constituency link but with two key improvements (aside from being proportional):
1. The constituencies are larger so you get more meaningful economic units and less of the really local stuff that should be the focus of (stronger, more devolved) local government, and 2. You get several members, usually from at least 2 parties, meaning you’re not dependent on your one local MP giving a damn or not
But it takes 5 days to count the votes and nobody can understand the result.
In the US, it takes more than 5 days to count the FPTP vote (or they call it WTA) and nobody believes the result.
FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Disagree. That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour. If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
I don't agree wth that at all.
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
Two classes of MP.
The former, glorified social workers.
The latter, doing what they should be doing.
I would get rid of the constituency link altogether and just have a pool of MPs who are able to focus on national priorities, world events and the big picture, not the roadworks outside the local primary school or Mrs Smith's noisy neighbours.
Another advantage of STV is that it preserves a form of constituency link but with two key improvements (aside from being proportional):
1. The constituencies are larger so you get more meaningful economic units and less of the really local stuff that should be the focus of (stronger, more devolved) local government, and 2. You get several members, usually from at least 2 parties, meaning you’re not dependent on your one local MP giving a damn or not
But it takes 5 days to count the votes and nobody can understand the result.
It took 5 WEEKS for everybody to actually vote in India in 2019 (FPTP). Electronic voting did speed things up on the counting front tho.
It takes a long time to distribute the bribes before the votes can be harvested.
Vellore, Tamil Nadu: Over ₹11 crore (US$1.4 million) in cash was seized in Vellore from DMK leaders – a regional party in Tamil Nadu. According to The News Minute, this cash is alleged to have been for bribing the voters.[25] Based on the evidence collected during the raids, the Election Commission of India cancelled the 18 April election date in the Vellore constituency. The DMK leaders denied wrongdoing and alleged a conspiracy.[26]
Kemi Badenoch is a member of a Conservative WhatsApp group called “Evil Plotters” despite telling party rebels to “stop messing around” and get behind Rishi Sunak, the Guardian can reveal.
The business secretary, who consistently comes out as the favourite cabinet minister in polls of Tory members, has criticised party colleagues for “stirring” up suggestions that she could replace the prime minister.
In a round of broadcast interviews on Sunday, she dismissed speculation over the plot to topple Sunak as “Westminster tittle-tattle” and said colleagues who put her name forward as an alternative were “not my friends”.
However, the Guardian has been told that Badenoch and Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, who is regarded as a key backer, are members of a WhatsApp group of similarly minded Tory MPs who are rallying round the business secretary’s longer-term ambitions.
I’m still completely lost about how she is considered a favourite by party members. I really cannot think of anything memorable about her so far except some rumblings about he being anti-woke.
The party is truly embuggered if that’s all that’s needed to be next leader instead of any substance or high level experience.
She is wooden at best, mostly invisible. No idea what the point of her is.
I wouldn’t describe her as wooden. She’s a confident speaker and polemicist, and more charismatic than most of her Tory peers.
She does strike me as pretty arrogant though. Every time I’ve seen her debating someone in parliament or TV she’s had a bit of a sneery teenage edge to her. I sensed similar at an event where she came to speak.
Kemi Badenoch is an enigma to me. I feel somehow she isn't as stupid as she appears to be, or as the rest of the Conservative stable. In the unlikely event I got a say in the next Tory leader selection, I wouldn't know whether to vote for her.
It feels that Badenoch, like Sunak, suffers form the disease of a generation of Tory politicians used to fairly easy successes and thinking they represent the eternal will of the people. She's clearly smart, and is more thoughtful in her arguments for the right than say, Truss, Braverman or delusional fruitbats like Frost and Hannan.
Yet like Sunak seems to have never developed the skill of understanding where your opponents are coming from, that they might actually have some worthwhile points and that persuasion instead of abrasion and tetchy defensiveness might be what works. She sometimes makes herself look foolish by assuming her opponent is stupid rather than having a competing viewpoint to engage with rather than roll your eyes at.
And she sounded almost Corbynite when trying to blame the media for the government's unpopularity yesterday. Which doesn't bode well. If it was silly when the Labour left blamed the media for their own shortcomings, it's trebly so when several papers and two TV channels regularly pump out your unfiltered propaganda.
She could end up being the new William Hague - becomes Tory leader on right-wing credentials after a bad defeat. Bangs on about party shibboleths and 'common sense' when the world has moved on. Then becomes quite a thoughtful ex-leader when defeat has battle-hardened and humbled a bit.
There's a lovely Welsh lady on my route who I first chatted to when I saw she had a letter with an RAF Akrotiri postmark on it. My Dad was posted there during the first Gulf War, and her Royal Marine son had been briefly stationed there on the way home from other adventures
She bought me a book that she'd seen in a charity shop, "Ramble On, The story of our love for walking Britain"
The first walk described in it is to Kinder Scout, right near Glossop where my Dad is from. There's a later one from Halton, where we lived when I was two. I can't wait to tell Mrs Barry about this!
Today we had some monthly bulletin showing where we rank locally; we've fallen a couple of places. It also has three positive, three negative comments from customers in our area; the longest comment was for me
"Our Postie (Blanche) always looks after our parcels, going above and beyond to deliver them safely. Always friendly and polite, she's a great asset to the Royal Mail team"
We need an NI politics expert on here. I miss the headers from @TheGreenMachine.
My ignorant take is that the DUP refuse to be Deputy First Minister to Sinn Féin, which is the real reason to stop Stormont sitting.
Indeed. First Minister and Deputy First Minister have exactly the same powers, so it shouldn't matter, but it does seem like, Brexit issues aside, the DUP is smarting at coming second.
But what are they going to do about it? They were nearly 8% behind Sinn Fein at last year's local elections. They've been behind SF in every Assembly poll and the solitary general election poll (that's on Wikipedia, at least) since Brexit. What do they think a new Labour government is going to give them that Sunak won't? There are tensions within the DUP about their current strategy.
In fact, I think they are extremely likely to go back into government. They’re meeting about it, as we speak.
I see my article had a big impact then!
But, yes, they've been discussing it for a while, although I thought the mood was they'd stick with the boycott. If they do go back into government, that's good news, I think. But what will it do for their vote at the general election? Will it bring back more moderate voters who didn't like the boycott? Maybe it's too late for that. Will it piss off more hardline voters who think the boycott was for nothing? The TUV could repeat their 2019 decision and not stand, reducing the danger to the DUP, but they could still suffer from people voting RON.
Ultimately, a boycott does not help unionists’ overall vote share. Donaldson has restored the DUP polling share from 13% to 28%, and got TUV down to 4%. Now, he’ll want to try winning votes back from Alliance. North Down, East Belfast, Strangford, East Antrim, South Antrim, Lagan Valley, have a huge Alliance vote, most of which is small u unionist.
TUV is only really a threat in North Antrim.
The best thing for Alliance, I posit, is a restored Assembly where people can see their greatly increased MLA numbers (more than doubled, leapfrogging the UUP and SDLP). The cat is out of the bag: people see Alliance as a serious force now, not just an afterthought.
If the DUP don’t want to join the assembly, they should be allowed to opt out. The DFM post should be offered to the leader of the third placed party. That is Alliance.
A public inquiry into what happened in Nottingham with Calocane will take years but imho will absolutely find that mental health services are the underfunded cinderella of the health service which struggles to cope with beds and staff every single day.
Maybe this is what it will take for something to be done.
Not only that, but it’s yet another bloody Trump thread. 😤. I hope everyone else is as bored with Trump threads as I am, and stay on @bondegezou’s thread.
Kemi Badenoch is a member of a Conservative WhatsApp group called “Evil Plotters” despite telling party rebels to “stop messing around” and get behind Rishi Sunak, the Guardian can reveal.
The business secretary, who consistently comes out as the favourite cabinet minister in polls of Tory members, has criticised party colleagues for “stirring” up suggestions that she could replace the prime minister.
In a round of broadcast interviews on Sunday, she dismissed speculation over the plot to topple Sunak as “Westminster tittle-tattle” and said colleagues who put her name forward as an alternative were “not my friends”.
However, the Guardian has been told that Badenoch and Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, who is regarded as a key backer, are members of a WhatsApp group of similarly minded Tory MPs who are rallying round the business secretary’s longer-term ambitions.
I’m still completely lost about how she is considered a favourite by party members. I really cannot think of anything memorable about her so far except some rumblings about he being anti-woke.
The party is truly embuggered if that’s all that’s needed to be next leader instead of any substance or high level experience.
She is wooden at best, mostly invisible. No idea what the point of her is.
I wouldn’t describe her as wooden. She’s a confident speaker and polemicist, and more charismatic than most of her Tory peers.
She does strike me as pretty arrogant though. Every time I’ve seen her debating someone in parliament or TV she’s had a bit of a sneery teenage edge to her. I sensed similar at an event where she came to speak.
Kemi Badenoch is an enigma to me. I feel somehow she isn't as stupid as she appears to be, or as the rest of the Conservative stable. In the unlikely event I got a say in the next Tory leader selection, I wouldn't know whether to vote for her.
It feels that Badenoch, like Sunak, suffers form the disease of a generation of Tory politicians used to fairly easy successes and thinking they represent the eternal will of the people. She's clearly smart, and is more thoughtful in her arguments for the right than say, Truss, Braverman or delusional fruitbats like Frost and Hannan.
Yet like Sunak seems to have never developed the skill of understanding where your opponents are coming from, that they might actually have some worthwhile points and that persuasion instead of abrasion and tetchy defensiveness might be what works. She sometimes makes herself look foolish by assuming her opponent is stupid rather than having a competing viewpoint to engage with rather than roll your eyes at.
And she sounded almost Corbynite when trying to blame the media for the government's unpopularity yesterday. Which doesn't bode well. If it was silly when the Labour left blamed the media for their own shortcomings, it's trebly so when several papers and two TV channels regularly pump out your unfiltered propaganda.
She could end up being the new William Hague - becomes Tory leader on right-wing credentials after a bad defeat. Bangs on about party shibboleths and 'common sense' when the world has moved on. Then becomes quite a thoughtful ex-leader when defeat has battle-hardened and humbled a bit.
Kemi Badenoch is a member of a Conservative WhatsApp group called “Evil Plotters” despite telling party rebels to “stop messing around” and get behind Rishi Sunak, the Guardian can reveal.
The business secretary, who consistently comes out as the favourite cabinet minister in polls of Tory members, has criticised party colleagues for “stirring” up suggestions that she could replace the prime minister.
In a round of broadcast interviews on Sunday, she dismissed speculation over the plot to topple Sunak as “Westminster tittle-tattle” and said colleagues who put her name forward as an alternative were “not my friends”.
However, the Guardian has been told that Badenoch and Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, who is regarded as a key backer, are members of a WhatsApp group of similarly minded Tory MPs who are rallying round the business secretary’s longer-term ambitions.
I’m still completely lost about how she is considered a favourite by party members. I really cannot think of anything memorable about her so far except some rumblings about he being anti-woke.
The party is truly embuggered if that’s all that’s needed to be next leader instead of any substance or high level experience.
She is wooden at best, mostly invisible. No idea what the point of her is.
I wouldn’t describe her as wooden. She’s a confident speaker and polemicist, and more charismatic than most of her Tory peers.
She does strike me as pretty arrogant though. Every time I’ve seen her debating someone in parliament or TV she’s had a bit of a sneery teenage edge to her. I sensed similar at an event where she came to speak.
Kemi Badenoch is an enigma to me. I feel somehow she isn't as stupid as she appears to be, or as the rest of the Conservative stable. In the unlikely event I got a say in the next Tory leader selection, I wouldn't know whether to vote for her.
It feels that Badenoch, like Sunak, suffers form the disease of a generation of Tory politicians used to fairly easy successes and thinking they represent the eternal will of the people. She's clearly smart, and is more thoughtful in her arguments for the right than say, Truss, Braverman or delusional fruitbats like Frost and Hannan.
Yet like Sunak seems to have never developed the skill of understanding where your opponents are coming from, that they might actually have some worthwhile points and that persuasion instead of abrasion and tetchy defensiveness might be what works. She sometimes makes herself look foolish by assuming her opponent is stupid rather than having a competing viewpoint to engage with rather than roll your eyes at.
And she sounded almost Corbynite when trying to blame the media for the government's unpopularity yesterday. Which doesn't bode well. If it was silly when the Labour left blamed the media for their own shortcomings, it's trebly so when several papers and two TV channels regularly pump out your unfiltered propaganda.
She could end up being the new William Hague - becomes Tory leader on right-wing credentials after a bad defeat. Bangs on about party shibboleths and 'common sense' when the world has moved on. Then becomes quite a thoughtful ex-leader when defeat has battle-hardened and humbled a bit.
Is she really that good when not being a Culture War Gobshite?
Comments
I guess that's supposed to be Feb 2025?
Interesting, thanks.
The point, of course, is to avoid bringing matters to a head. What was it the Derryman said about the prospects for the future in 2005? 'I'd say they were indefinite. And maybe even longer than that.'
What annoys me more is we're still paying the fuckers. If they can't be bothered to work, they shouldn't be getting cash.
(Speaking of which, haven't they been postponed until February 2025?)
You fix everyone’s computer without regard to their gender or religion
Your buttons are neither black nor white.
You’re welcome.
https://kyivindependent.com/commander-in-chief-zaluzhnyi/
Quite. Is there any strategy here? Just constantly kicking the can doesn't seem to be healing divides.
https://twitter.com/hewitson10/status/1752051529094172894
#GreatestPMWeNeverHad
... should it?
‘The legal system we have and the rule of law are far more responsible for our traditional liberties than any system of one man one vote. Any country or government which wants to proceed towards tyranny starts to undermine legal rights and undermine the law.’
Kemi Badenoch is an enigma to me. I feel somehow she isn't as stupid as she appears to be, or as the rest of the Conservative stable. In the unlikely event I got a say in the next Tory leader selection, I wouldn't know whether to vote for her.
Does anyone know the detail?
Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).
EXC: More than 20 serving Tory ministers may vote against or abstain on Sunak’s landmark smoking ban — amid confusion whether throwaway vape ban will also be a free vote
LOSER
My ignorant take is that the DUP refuse to be Deputy First Minister to Sinn Féin, which is the real reason to stop Stormont sitting.
@Lucian_Fletcher was it?
Apologies if wrong.
That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
Got him elected a few times too.
I agree with @ydoethur - why are these NI Assembly memebers being paid if they refuse to work?
That stance assumes that going down to vote is “good” behaviour and that we should encourage - or even coerce or compel - that behaviour.
If one genuinely sees the choice as being equivalent to choosing between syphilis or herpes, or between Laurence Fox and Ron DeSantis, then it’s perfectly rational to prefer, say, spending family time with ones’ children, or wife, or going for a nice meal out as a family.
Just because I think one should vote (and I do; I even go to vote in PCC by-elections) doesn’t mean that my view should be pressed on others. Let votes be earned, not compelled. And if people may be “lazy”, let them. Those who do not wish to vote do not have to prove their worth to us, that they aren’t “lazy”, and those who are too “lazy” to vote simply lose their own voice as “punishment” when they could have made it heard.
(Disclaimer: I did once think people should be required to record a NOTA vote until I thought through it a bit more)
And incentivise those who feel as Pagan2 does to have something to vote for with the prospect of actually causing some kind of change. Especially if the losing parties are also banned from the rerun
The addition of Ron to the ballot adds the ability of voters to express their displeasure with the choices they've been offered.
Nottingham council proposing to close a big park and ride site to save money even though it is the overspill for major regional hospital.
Means loads of people struggling to park when they have appointments will be late and - guess what - yet again the NHS starts to fall over even more than now.
When the fuck in this country are we going to elect politicians and employ civil servants who understand joined up, long term thinking and strategy and not their own little silo??
If I were some recent graduate with a debt comparable to that of a medium-sized African country being screamed at and brutalised by some bellend of a corporal, I think I'd be more inclined to point my assault rifle in the general direction of my supposed superiors than Vladimir Putin. Them again, some bright spark could always propose that conscription should begin not with blameless twenty somethings but with the various classes of rich parasites in society, who wank themselves silly at the thought of the children of the poor being butchered, just so that they can continued to enjoy their vast, unearned, property speculation derived wealth? That might just put a stop to the flag shagging rhetoric.
So you've got all three branches of the federal government involved! Most especially the Speaker of the House.
The hospital is planning a multi storey car park sometime in the future but on each occasion I have had to go to the hospital I have had either my son or daughter drive me and my wife for my appointments
I was told to park on yellow lines or disabled parking spaces as the hospital does not enforce any of these breaches
And Labour has been in power in the Senedd continuously since it's inception in 1999
I have wondered if, for possible House of Lords elections, the turnout figure could drive the number of corss-bencher peers.
(for example - if the Lords had 500 seats, turnout was 65%, and of those 65%, 25 voted Labour, 20 Conservative, 7 Lib Dem, 3 SNP, 3 Green, 3 Reform, 2 Plaid, 2 for other parties, then we'd have:
125 Labour peers
100 Tory Peers
28 Lib Dem peers
12 SNP peers
12 Green peers
12 Reform peers
8 Plaid peers
8 from other parties,
and 140 cross-benchers.
(Each party would have a sort of "pool" of peers to nominate for each annual session, up to their number of peers from the election)
(This is where I prefer STV, anyway, where this could be resolved to a degree.)
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-irish-mcguinness-idUKTRE52F69220090316/
*pretty much
I understand the point but you're implying that by definition those who choose not to vote do so because they don't want to vote for any of the candidates. That might be true, it may not.
Of course, a ballot paper can be spoilt and that is recorded but if we're going to use turnout (or a lack of it) to legitimise elections, what about local elections with a 30% turnout - what of local by-elections with 15% turnout or smaller?
You can't have it both ways - if you want to register a vote against all the candidates, fine, more than happy for that to be included on a basllot paper but not the assumption of abstention.
I'll give you another example - what happens if I want to support a party but I don't like the local candidate or support that candidate's position on a particular local issue? As we are geographically locked in to constituencies, we are forced to vote for the candidate each party puts in front of us. Plenty on here would support the constituency link to the last but it's deeply flawed.
There are plenty of electoral systems which enable both a constituency AND a national party vote but the argument is it creates two "classes" of MP. Many democracies function quite happily on that basis.
"England, Wales and Scotland should be an independent country. Yes or No."
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Zionist_Shitlord.jpg
And it is how money is spent
Welsh Government's take-it-or-leave-it offer for electric trucks sparks backlash
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/welsh-governments-take-leave-offer-28519874#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
He said that it was the most popular decision in his 10 year term, never got anything but thank yous!
But what are they going to do about it? They were nearly 8% behind Sinn Fein at last year's local elections. They've been behind SF in every Assembly poll and the solitary general election poll (that's on Wikipedia, at least) since Brexit. What do they think a new Labour government is going to give them that Sunak won't? There are tensions within the DUP about their current strategy.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1751784236556644625
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
·
9h
We've now had more consecutive polls with the Tories below 30% than at any previous point since regular UK polling began.
The former, glorified social workers.
The latter, doing what they should be doing.
I would get rid of the constituency link altogether and just have a pool of MPs who are able to focus on national priorities, world events and the big picture, not the roadworks outside the local primary school or Mrs Smith's noisy neighbours.
RON/NOTA would be welcome as it gives those who dislike all an option.
My strong preference is for an STV system, anyway, which gives you the way around your suggested problem.
"People have started calling Boebert, “Trailer Swift,” and it’s mean but also a little funny."
1. The constituencies are larger so you get more meaningful economic units and less of the really local stuff that should be the focus of (stronger, more devolved) local government, and
2. You get several members, usually from at least 2 parties, meaning you’re not dependent on your one local MP giving a damn or not
But, yes, they've been discussing it for a while, although I thought the mood was they'd stick with the boycott. If they do go back into government, that's good news, I think. But what will it do for their vote at the general election? Will it bring back more moderate voters who didn't like the boycott? Maybe it's too late for that. Will it piss off more hardline voters who think the boycott was for nothing? The TUV could repeat their 2019 decision and not stand, reducing the danger to the DUP, but they could still suffer from people voting RON.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab,_Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab
The report is optimistic, but suggests some hurdles remain. I am sceptical that most DUP or former DUP voters will be that impressed by whatever the deal is.
TUV is only really a threat in North Antrim.
A new thread already?
Yet like Sunak seems to have never developed the skill of understanding where your opponents are coming from, that they might actually have some worthwhile points and that persuasion instead of abrasion and tetchy defensiveness might be what works. She sometimes makes herself look foolish by assuming her opponent is stupid rather than having a competing viewpoint to engage with rather than roll your eyes at.
And she sounded almost Corbynite when trying to blame the media for the government's unpopularity yesterday. Which doesn't bode well. If it was silly when the Labour left blamed the media for their own shortcomings, it's trebly so when several papers and two TV channels regularly pump out your unfiltered propaganda.
She could end up being the new William Hague - becomes Tory leader on right-wing credentials after a bad defeat. Bangs on about party shibboleths and 'common sense' when the world has moved on. Then becomes quite a thoughtful ex-leader when defeat has battle-hardened and humbled a bit.
There's a lovely Welsh lady on my route who I first chatted to when I saw she had a letter with an RAF Akrotiri postmark on it. My Dad was posted there during the first Gulf War, and her Royal Marine son had been briefly stationed there on the way home from other adventures
She bought me a book that she'd seen in a charity shop, "Ramble On, The story of our love for walking Britain"
The first walk described in it is to Kinder Scout, right near Glossop where my Dad is from. There's a later one from Halton, where we lived when I was two. I can't wait to tell Mrs Barry about this!
Today we had some monthly bulletin showing where we rank locally; we've fallen a couple of places. It also has three positive, three negative comments from customers in our area; the longest comment was for me
"Our Postie (Blanche) always looks after our parcels, going above and beyond to deliver them safely. Always friendly and polite, she's a great asset to the Royal Mail team"
Someone actually bothered to write that about me
Maybe this is what it will take for something to be done.
(see the Rye College Cat ID fiasco.)