Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Election postponed – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 4 in General
imageElection postponed – politicalbetting.com

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.

Read the full story here

Comments

  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,619
    .. First?
  • booksellerbookseller Posts: 412
    Second like the DUP.

    I guess that's supposed to be Feb 2025?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    @bondegezou

    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?)
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,743

    Second like the DUP.

    I guess that's supposed to be Feb 2025?

    I suspect that Ian Paisley Sr's "Never! Never! Never!" might be closer to the mark, unfortunately.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,632
    ohnotnow said:

    .. First?

    ohnotnow said:

    .. First?

    FPT

    You fix everyone’s computer without regard to their gender or religion

    Your buttons are neither black nor white.

    You’re welcome.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,418
    edited January 29
    It's being reported that Zelensky has fired General Zaluzhnyi although it's being officially denied for now.

    https://kyivindependent.com/commander-in-chief-zaluzhnyi/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    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.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,382
    edited January 29
    TimS said:

    boulay said:

    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.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/29/kemi-badenoch-member-evil-plotters-tory-whatsapp-group?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    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.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,973
    kle4 said:

    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.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 17,732
    Interesting moves on EU vs Hungary, wrt the EU pivoting from Carrot to Biggus Stickus.

    Does anyone know the detail?
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,778
    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).
  • kle4 said:

    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,399
    @MrHarryCole

    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
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,695
    edited January 29
    FF43 said:

    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.

    Whatever happened to the OUP supporting guy who used to comment regularly?
    @Lucian_Fletcher was it?
    Apologies if wrong.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,616

    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.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,826
    stodge said:

    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,399
    ...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705
    stodge said:

    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?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    stodge said:

    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.

    Got him elected a few times too. :smile:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705
    Interesting thread header - thank you @bondegezou.

    I agree with @ydoethur - why are these NI Assembly memebers being paid if they refuse to work?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    stodge said:

    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.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,778
    stodge said:

    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)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705
    What was that on the previous thread about Jan 6 subpoenas to Congress? Didn't really understand it.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,778

    stodge said:

    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
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    stodge said:

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    stodge said:

    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?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 57,807
    edited January 29
    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??

  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,973
    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.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 18,981
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    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.
    Seems an unusual role for DeSantis.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,532
    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    boulay said:

    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.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/29/kemi-badenoch-member-evil-plotters-tory-whatsapp-group?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    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.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,075
    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    boulay said:

    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.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/29/kemi-badenoch-member-evil-plotters-tory-whatsapp-group?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    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.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 14,788

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654

    Interesting thread header - thank you @bondegezou.

    I agree with @ydoethur - why are these NI Assembly memebers being paid if they refuse to work?

    Because taxpayers vote for them?

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751

    Second like the DUP.

    I guess that's supposed to be Feb 2025?

    Yes! It is a delight to have a piece published on PB and, as is traditional, I made a typo. :smile:
  • 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
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,778
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    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)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    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.
    Seems an unusual role for DeSantis.
    Well, he's looking for new opportunities.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,778
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    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.)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565
    ydoethur said:

    @bondegezou

    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?)

    "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.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-irish-mcguinness-idUKTRE52F69220090316/
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654
    edited January 29

    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).

    *pretty much
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,616

    stodge said:

    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.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,614
    The solution to Northern Ireland would be an independence referendum ... in GB.

    "England, Wales and Scotland should be an independent country. Yes or No."
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,591
    I see Akehurst has got another Political enemy suspended from the PLP

    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Zionist_Shitlord.jpg
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 59,655
    edited January 29
    Carnyx 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 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

    https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/welsh-governments-take-leave-offer-28519874#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,514

    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!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    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.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751
    FF43 said:

    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,671

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    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.
  • Foxy 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
    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
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751

    Interesting thread header - thank you @bondegezou.

    I agree with @ydoethur - why are these NI Assembly memebers being paid if they refuse to work?

    The Government has docked their pay somewhat: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/northern-ireland-secretary-announces-275-reduction-to-mla-pay
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,474
    Some context for Leon’s next claim of having an enormous IQ.
    https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1751784236556644625
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    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.
    I presume you mean "contest" rather than "box".
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 57,807

    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.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565
    rcs1000 said:

    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 :innocent:
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654

    Foxy 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
    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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,737

    FF43 said:

    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.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,182
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    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.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751
    rcs1000 said:

    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?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654

    rcs1000 said:

    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?
    Derry Harbour, I imagine.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,619

    rcs1000 said:

    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
  • Carnyx said:

    Foxy 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
    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.
    It comes under labour controlled Denbighshire CC
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,778
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy 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
    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.
    It comes under labour controlled Denbighshire CC
    Ah, thanks.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,514
    Nigelb said:

    Some context for Leon’s next claim of having an enormous IQ.
    https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1751784236556644625

    I love this comment below:

    "People have started calling Boebert, “Trailer Swift,” and it’s mean but also a little funny."
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,182

    rcs1000 said:

    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 :innocent:
    Punjab = Indian administered Khalistan
  • TimSTimS Posts: 8,669

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    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
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565
    edited January 29
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751
    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    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.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565

    rcs1000 said:

    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 :innocent:
    Punjab = Indian administered Khalistan
    Leeds = Yorkshire administered East Lancs.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565


    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.

    No Tory polls leads since 6th December 2021 (Redfield).
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059


    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?
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,219
    On topic, it's amazing the sheer amount of pointless vandalism Brexit has wrought across the UK that we just shrug and take for granted.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565
    edited January 29

    rcs1000 said:

    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 :innocent:
    Punjab = Indian administered Khalistan
    You forgot the Pakistan administered bit (far larger than India's!).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab,_Pakistan
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,182
    TimS said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    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.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751
    BBC report on DUP considering a deal: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68124728

    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.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751

    TimS said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    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
  • TimSTimS Posts: 8,669

    TimS said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,737

    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    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.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565

    TimS said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    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.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    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.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,182

    TimS said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    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.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565

    A new thread already?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004

    TimS said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    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.
    Add in weeks for the legal challenges.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565

    TimS said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    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]
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,219
    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    boulay said:

    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.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/29/kemi-badenoch-member-evil-plotters-tory-whatsapp-group?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    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.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705

    A new thread already?

    Yes. Too quickly.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,758

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    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.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 57,807
    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.

  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,758

    A new thread already?

    Yes. Too quickly.
    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.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,743
    MJW said:

    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    boulay said:

    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.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/29/kemi-badenoch-member-evil-plotters-tory-whatsapp-group?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    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.
    MJW said:

    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    boulay said:

    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.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/29/kemi-badenoch-member-evil-plotters-tory-whatsapp-group?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    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?

    (see the Rye College Cat ID fiasco.)
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,729
    As Bondegezou deserves the courtesy, 100th.
This discussion has been closed.