I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly . It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
Actually it's much worse than Stop the War. They may be misguided but at least are following some kind of principle. The Trumpers are acting out of pure cynicism.
I disagree. Stop the War is set on undermining the UK in perpetuity. The current crop of GOP politicians are spineless and self-interested but I don’t hold the view that Trump will do irreparable harm to the West.
You may have a "view" that he won't be a disaster but your view is worth very little. Neither is mine that he WILL be a disaster. Obviously I prefer my view (I think there's far more evidence for it) but these various views (whereby people try and predict what Trump2 will mean in practice) are really not the point.
It's about risk, the risk that comes with Donald Trump back in the WH. The man is driven 100% by spite, ego, pettiness, all is personal, it's about him and nothing else, therefore one can't predict with any confidence whatsoever what it will translate to in real world impact. It's about risk and the risk is sky high.
Plus it's a skewed risk. The chance of the benign extreme (he turns out to be fabulous, a model of calm competence and moral fibre) is let's face it zero. Whereas the chance of the malign extreme (he absolutely trashes the place) is quite high. That's the calculus and there's only one rational reaction to it - pass.
I would give the Conservatives a miraculous victory in this year's general election in exchange for the Democrats winning in November in a heartbeat, if offered such a deal by the devil.
i regret I have to concur.
The last time I was seriously concerned about the threat to democracy in the USA was back in the seventies during peak Nixon. Trump however is a far more serious and real threat than Tricky Dicky ever was.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
Having PR would not turn us into Israel. That is a really feeble argument.
But tbf given we also have suggestions we could take a leaf from El Salvador it seems bizarre comparisons are today's theme.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
In a pure PR system we'd consistently get about 30% of votes and seats in this country going to far-left and far-right populists, with another 5% going to a variety of nationalists.
It would make it challenging to form stable governments without them.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
In a pure PR system we'd consistently get about 30% of votes and seats in this country going to far-left and far-right populists, with another 5% going to a variety of nationalists.
It would make it challenging to form stable governments without them.
Thank goodness stable government has been the trademark of recent years under FPTP.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly . It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
Actually it's much worse than Stop the War. They may be misguided but at least are following some kind of principle. The Trumpers are acting out of pure cynicism.
I disagree. Stop the War is set on undermining the UK in perpetuity. The current crop of GOP politicians are spineless and self-interested but I don’t hold the view that Trump will do irreparable harm to the West.
You may have a "view" that he won't be a disaster but your view is worth very little. Neither is mine that he WILL be a disaster. Obviously I prefer my view (I think there's far more evidence for it) but these various views (whereby people try and predict what Trump2 will mean in practice) are really not the point.
It's about risk, the risk that comes with Donald Trump back in the WH. The man is driven 100% by spite, ego, pettiness, all is personal, it's about him and nothing else, therefore one can't predict with any confidence whatsoever what it will translate to in real world impact. It's about risk and the risk is sky high.
Plus it's a skewed risk. The chance of the benign extreme (he turns out to be fabulous, a model of calm competence and moral fibre) is let's face it zero. Whereas the chance of the malign extreme (he absolutely trashes the place) is quite high. That's the calculus and there's only one rational reaction to it - pass.
I would give the Conservatives a miraculous victory in this year's general election in exchange for the Democrats winning in November in a heartbeat, if offered such a deal by the devil.
i regret I have to concur.
The last time I was seriously concerned about the threat to democracy in the USA was back in the seventies during peak Nixon. Trump however is a far more serious and real threat than Tricky Dicky ever was.
IIRC one of the Nixon White House aides was asked, later, why they didn't just destroy all the evidence. And fake some tapes to fill the gaps*.
He looked astonished.....
*Someone wrote a brilliant post on soc.history.what-if about Nixon faking tapes - that implicated the Democrats in all kinds of shady stuff. Complete with Nixon high mindidly stating that for The Good of The Country the crimes of the Democrats must remain a secret....
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
In a pure PR system we'd consistently get about 30% of votes and seats in this country going to far-left and far-right populists, with another 5% going to a variety of nationalists.
It would make it challenging to form stable governments without them.
Thank goodness stable government has been the trademark of recent years under FPTP.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
Here's Rishi Sunak, who this morning claimed that "I'm not a betting man" in order to distance himself from his £1,000 bet with Piers Morgan... boasting about his love of spread betting.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
Having PR would not turn us into Israel. That is a really feeble argument.
But tbf given we also have suggestions we could take a leaf from El Salvador it seems bizarre comparisons are today's theme.
If you live in a world which is basically Altered Carbon plus Trans Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs trying to kill you (all the fucking time) then a bit of semi-demi-not-quite-fascist-strongman peace and quiet probably seems attractive.
Meanwhile, in the real world, a chubby football hooligan gets convicted at the local magistrates court for piddling in public next to a minor war memorial.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
The modern thing is to get you up and out of hospital as fast as possible.
There was a seminal study, years back, that if you spent more than x time in a hospital bed, your chances of getting bedridden soared.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
That is a deeply ridiculous statement.
I thought CR was referring to the GOP and wondered what your disagreement was, then I read back and it all became clear!
I fear that for some people those not fawning over every non-news bulletin on the state of the royal arsehole* are worse than the appeasing, gerrymandering, hypocritical, racist GOP.
*I'm referring to Charlie's downstairs, not the man himself.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I would love to see some modelling of how an FPTP election would come out in Israel. I've looked in the past and can't find anything.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
That is a deeply ridiculous statement.
I thought CR was referring to the GOP and wondered what your disagreement was, then I read back and it all became clear!
It would in any event be wrong to call all GOP voters 'deeply unpleasant people' - though the activist base certainly has more than its fair share.
Might be out of step with how things are seen in the states, but I wouldn't call all GOP voters Republicans any more than I'd call all Con voters here Tories (or whatever the equivalent is for Labour - Labourites?).
And, not all GOP members/politicians are deeply unpleasant people either, but many of those most in the public eye do appear to be.
Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
1997 says hello.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
Yes, totally agree. I had a similar experience in Switzerland, where direct democracy means referenda every 3 months on diverse issues. I knew lots of Swiss couples who would set aside an evening each quarter to go through the arguments and decide what they favoured on each topic. Who had proposed the idea and whether they were left or right was secondary.
I bet those couples were fun at dinner parties.
As against PB-ers, with their fascinating anecdotes about the d'Hondt system, and the unreliability of Scottish subsamples?
Republicans are absurdly overrepresented on pb.com.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
As opposed to this nasty little dig at an entire section of the electorate ?
..Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be...
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
Being somewhere like Phnom Penh - which is so much poorer than western Europe or the USA - sadly points up how fast the west is declining, relatively, despite western wealth
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
Plenty of graffiti in Pompeii and it still took another 400 years for the Roman Empire to fall.
I suppose this reactionary silliness shows us that - to paraphrase Clemenceau- you have gone from enfant terrible to old curmudgeon without the usual interval of mature reflection.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
In a pure PR system we'd consistently get about 30% of votes and seats in this country going to far-left and far-right populists, with another 5% going to a variety of nationalists.
It would make it challenging to form stable governments without them.
Thank goodness stable government has been the trademark of recent years under FPTP.
Thank goodness we no longer have the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
1997 says hello.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
Yes, totally agree. I had a similar experience in Switzerland, where direct democracy means referenda every 3 months on diverse issues. I knew lots of Swiss couples who would set aside an evening each quarter to go through the arguments and decide what they favoured on each topic. Who had proposed the idea and whether they were left or right was secondary.
I bet those couples were fun at dinner parties.
Do we need to be reminded about Nick P's anecdote about the fun couples (and more) get up to in Switzerland?
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
The modern thing is to get you up and out of hospital as fast as possible.
There was a seminal study, years back, that if you spent more than x time in a hospital bed, your chances of getting bedridden soared.
Apart from the operation I have been in a day chair all along
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
Being somewhere like Phnom Penh - which is so much poorer than western Europe or the USA - sadly points up how fast the west is declining, relatively, despite western wealth
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
Plenty of graffiti in Pompeii and it still took another 400 years for the Roman Empire to fall.
I suppose this reactionary silliness shows us that - to paraphrase Clemenceau- you have gone from enfant terrible to old curmudgeon without the usual interval of mature reflection.
Or, I am right, and the west is now in a period of relative decline, which is unfortunately accelerating, with a risk it will tip into absolute decline
But then, to see that, you'd need a greater perspective: ie you'd need to travel the world a lot AND have an open mind, so I see the problem for quite a few PB-ers
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
Being somewhere like Phnom Penh - which is so much poorer than western Europe or the USA - sadly points up how fast the west is declining, relatively, despite western wealth
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
Plenty of graffiti in Pompeii and it still took another 400 years for the Roman Empire to fall.
I suppose this reactionary silliness shows us that - to paraphrase Clemenceau- you have gone from enfant terrible to old curmudgeon without the usual interval of mature reflection.
Leon should be delighted, since it involves both AI, and epicurean delights. ..The achievement has ignited the usually slow-moving world of ancient studies. It’s “what I always thought was a pipe dream coming true”, says Kenneth Lapatin, curator of antiquities at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, California, who was not involved in the contest. The revealed text discusses sources of pleasure including music, the taste of capers and the colour purple. “It’s an historic moment,” says classicist Bob Fowler at the University of Bristol, UK, one of the prize judges. The three students, from Egypt, Switzerland and the United States, who revealed the text share a US$700,000 grand prize...
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Mental exercise is the way forward, too.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
The modern thing is to get you up and out of hospital as fast as possible.
There was a seminal study, years back, that if you spent more than x time in a hospital bed, your chances of getting bedridden soared.
Well known that hospitals are dangerous. Most common place to die (in England, anyway) until 2016. Still a fairly close second to that notorious death trap, the home
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Mental exercise is the way forward, too.
Which is a good reason to visit PB, where you can read people believing at least six impossible things before breakfast.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
It is weird but I do sometimes feel it with a celeb who means a lot to me. Usually it would be in sports or music. Tiger Woods, oddly, I feel a connection to.
Connection here being different to fandom. Eg Bob Dylan is a genuine idol of mine, and I know I'd feel deeply sad if misfortune befell him, but I don't feel a big 'connection' with Bob the person. Whereas with Tiger I do. If he misses a putt, say, it's like I've missed it. That's how I feel. We're both of us playing when he's playing. It's quite an intense experience. Less of it now of course since he's semi-retired.
The Royals, no, not really. Although I feel a bit more for Charles than I did for the late Queen. I think it's because he's shown us who he is over the years, there's a vulnerability there, more of a 3d person, an ok one imo, whereas she was something of a void (to me).
This is one of the few areas where as I've got older I've changed my mind and become more Conservative.
I used to love PR, I'm now opposed. Too much power would go to those who make candidate lists. I don't love coalition govt either - hard for people to know what they are voting for.
How exactly do you think we get lumbered with toxic numpties like Chope, sitting forever in his safe seat, now?
Party controlled lists are just a response to the removal of "safe seats". They are worse than FPTP, in any analysis.
Plenty of PR systems do not use lists, so it is quite possible to elect independents. It is also possible, under STV, to distinguish between, say, Jacob Rees Mogg and Ken Clarke while still maintaining a clear party preference. That ability is not possible in FPTP. The current system is already run by a tiny cabal of party activists, so it is not a choice between FPTP and PR that should exercise you, but which form of PR.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I would love to see some modelling of how an FPTP election would come out in Israel. I've looked in the past and can't find anything.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
Compare to the unstable politics of Italy, where almost every election they try a different electoral system. Attempts by the current government to introduce a unique quasi-presidential system (deliberately) miss the point that it is the *weakness* of political parties there that is a big part of the problem. (Though the new system, if introduced, might help enable a form of semi-dictatorship).
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
The modern thing is to get you up and out of hospital as fast as possible.
There was a seminal study, years back, that if you spent more than x time in a hospital bed, your chances of getting bedridden soared.
I’m convinced that I’d have been a lot better off at home with support, than in the ‘rehabilitation’ unit where I spent a month or so just before Christmas 2022.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
The modern thing is to get you up and out of hospital as fast as possible.
There was a seminal study, years back, that if you spent more than x time in a hospital bed, your chances of getting bedridden soared.
Well known that hospitals are dangerous. Most common place to die (in England, anyway) until 2016. Still a fairly close second to that notorious death trap, the home
Lots of DiHydrogen Monoxide in both places. Hmmmmm....
EDIT: The study showed your probability of losing mobility, soared in older people, corrected for other factors. Picking up an infection was a whole other thing...
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly . It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
Actually it's much worse than Stop the War. They may be misguided but at least are following some kind of principle. The Trumpers are acting out of pure cynicism.
I disagree. Stop the War is set on undermining the UK in perpetuity. The current crop of GOP politicians are spineless and self-interested but I don’t hold the view that Trump will do irreparable harm to the West.
You may have a "view" that he won't be a disaster but your view is worth very little. Neither is mine that he WILL be a disaster. Obviously I prefer my view (I think there's far more evidence for it) but these various views (whereby people try and predict what Trump2 will mean in practice) are really not the point.
It's about risk, the risk that comes with Donald Trump back in the WH. The man is driven 100% by spite, ego, pettiness, all is personal, it's about him and nothing else, therefore one can't predict with any confidence whatsoever what it will translate to in real world impact. It's about risk and the risk is sky high.
Plus it's a skewed risk. The chance of the benign extreme (he turns out to be fabulous, a model of calm competence and moral fibre) is let's face it zero. Whereas the chance of the malign extreme (he absolutely trashes the place) is quite high. That's the calculus and there's only one rational reaction to it - pass.
I would give the Conservatives a miraculous victory in this year's general election in exchange for the Democrats winning in November in a heartbeat, if offered such a deal by the devil.
Gosh that's a devil of a choice. I'm so looking forward to a Labour win at last, meaning I'd need much longer than a heartbeat, I'd need an agonized 48 hours straight, no sleep, not eating, probably developing a rash and a psychosomatic stomach ache, but yes I'd probably end up where you are.
Fortunately my betting head says Labour landslide AND Trump loses. Head and heart are aligned on 2024's Big Two political events.
Yes, I should have perhaps made clear that I would vastly prefer both the Conservatives and Trump to lose - there's still a few people around for whom Conservatives and Democrats both winning would be the first choice.
And if I was still living in the UK it would be a bit harder, but I would still MUCH rather Conservatives + Democrats, than Labour + Republicans.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
The modern thing is to get you up and out of hospital as fast as possible.
There was a seminal study, years back, that if you spent more than x time in a hospital bed, your chances of getting bedridden soared.
Well known that hospitals are dangerous. Most common place to die (in England, anyway) until 2016. Still a fairly close second to that notorious death trap, the home
Lots of DiHydrogen Monoxide in both places. Hmmmmm....
EDIT: The study showed your probability of losing mobility, soared in older people, corrected for other factors. Picking up an infection was a whole other thing...
When I was professionally involved with a discharge team the main reason for not discharging an elderly person was that the toilet was upstairs.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
The modern thing is to get you up and out of hospital as fast as possible.
There was a seminal study, years back, that if you spent more than x time in a hospital bed, your chances of getting bedridden soared.
I’m convinced that I’d have been a lot better off at home with support, than in the ‘rehabilitation’ unit where I spent a month or so just before Christmas 2022.
My mum has had extended stays (month+) in a couple, Brentwood and Thurrock. While one was better than the other, neither really helped her particularly. I think they're potentially good for a fairly simple thing like a broken bone that needs a good programme of physio to get mobility back (and can be more efficient for that than home visits, I can appreciate). But for more complex things, they can just be a bit of a holding pen. My mum was offered some physio, but had other, cognitive, issues and spent most of the time in Thurrock outside visiting hours alone in a room with no one to talk to. Was definitely a downwards trajectory there and only stabilised/improved a little on coming home.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I would love to see some modelling of how an FPTP election would come out in Israel. I've looked in the past and can't find anything.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
On the last point, worth noting that: a) some of those 10 Israeli "parties" are actually alliances of other parties (the Arab List and National Unity being the obvious examples) - some of those alliances might be formalised under FPTP, but others might not, eg I'm not sure whether and how the different Arab parties break down along geographical lines. b) it's a much smaller country - 120 MKs vs 650 MPS, meaning an average party size of 12 vs 65. c) spread is also very different and much more important to coalition forming - the 1 Green UK MP makes very little difference to left wing representation next to the 200-odd Labour MPs currently in the Commons, whereas a small Israeli party meeting the threshold and getting 3-5 MKs (versus not hitting the threshold) can make a massive difference in terms of what coalitions are possible.
"Myriad of tiny parties" is a bit of an exaggeration, but the general point being made is valid.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
No, it wasn't a dig at the monarchy. I just don't care about him.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
The modern thing is to get you up and out of hospital as fast as possible.
There was a seminal study, years back, that if you spent more than x time in a hospital bed, your chances of getting bedridden soared.
Well known that hospitals are dangerous. Most common place to die (in England, anyway) until 2016. Still a fairly close second to that notorious death trap, the home
Joking aside, hospitals are pretty dangerous for picking up infections. Quite why in 2024 we do not have individual rooms for every patient, I have no idea, but there we are. I narrowly avoided death by Legionaires when I was being treated for Leukeamia in the RUH in Bath ten years ago - a few months later a patient in the isolation suite I was in suffered that exact fate.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
The modern thing is to get you up and out of hospital as fast as possible.
There was a seminal study, years back, that if you spent more than x time in a hospital bed, your chances of getting bedridden soared.
I’m convinced that I’d have been a lot better off at home with support, than in the ‘rehabilitation’ unit where I spent a month or so just before Christmas 2022.
My mum has had extended stays (month+) in a couple, Brentwood and Thurrock. While one was better than the other, neither really helped her particularly. I think they're potentially good for a fairly simple thing like a broken bone that needs a good programme of physio to get mobility back (and can be more efficient for that than home visits, I can appreciate). But for more complex things, they can just be a bit of a holding pen. My mum was offered some physio, but had other, cognitive, issues and spent most of the time in Thurrock outside visiting hours alone in a room with no one to talk to. Was definitely a downwards trajectory there and only stabilised/improved a little on coming home.
That was my experience of Thurrock, too. The TV in my room didn’t work either. Fortunately for me I could find podcasts on my iPad, although internet reception was a bit hit and miss.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
Paying a different salary for the same job, is illegal (excepting for performance, as defined and demonstrated through your HR process).
Consider the phrase "Equal pay for equal work"
The Birmingham case arose from women being paid less, for a *different jobs*, that was judged to be *equivalent* to the higher paid jobs that the men were doing.
What this is about, is trying to define "different but equivalent" jobs.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
Paying a different salary for the same job, is illegal (excepting for performance, as defined and demonstrated through your HR process).
Consider the phrase "Equal pay for equal work"
The Birmingham case arose from women being paid less, for a *different jobs*, that was judged to be *equivalent* to the higher paid jobs that the men were doing.
What this is about, is trying to define "different but equivalent" jobs.
Was the birmingham case the warehouse workers vs till operators or somesuch?
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
I mean we could retreat to my happy place, republicanism, but I doubt the rest of PB would agree with me.
With you as supreme leader.
Amiright.
Eww, no, supreme leader sounds far too much like hard work. I'd much prefer anarcho syndicalism please. But, if that's not possible, an elected head of state will do.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I would love to see some modelling of how an FPTP election would come out in Israel. I've looked in the past and can't find anything.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
Compare to the unstable politics of Italy, where almost every election they try a different electoral system. Attempts by the current government to introduce a unique quasi-presidential system (deliberately) miss the point that it is the *weakness* of political parties there that is a big part of the problem. (Though the new system, if introduced, might help enable a form of semi-dictatorship).
The forgotten issue is this. In any democratic situation, party politics evolves around what is possible within it, and voters act collectively to achieve what they want within the constraints of the system. This is always imperfect. The next election is likely to be a good example of it.
System change merely, in most cases, moves the imperfections around and causes confusion, and can take decades for the voting public to catch up.
Personally I want the smallest possible chance of centrists having to do deals with the simplistic and authoritarian right or the ideological and totalitarian left. In the UK FPTP achieves this as well as is realistic even though it isn't perfect. Even in the exceptional circumstances of 2027 and 2019 the system just about held on.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
If I’d become a lawyer, as I did vaguely think about, I’d almost certainly have been a lefty one!
Apologies if this comes over as a bit morbid, but does the news about the health of KCIII increase the odds of a January 2025 election?
If we suppose that the current plan is to hang on for a December 12th election, with dissolution in early November, then the timetable would be put out of kilter by the untimely death of the Monarch.
I don't know what would happen to the date of the election were a Monarch to die between dissolution and polling day, but if the Monarch died in the couple of days before the election was announced, then it would presumably be delayed for a couple of weeks - and then necessarily until the New Year, if the original date was 12th December.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I would love to see some modelling of how an FPTP election would come out in Israel. I've looked in the past and can't find anything.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
It’s like looking at Northern Ireland and saying that Northern Irish politics is a result of STV being used for most elections. No, we use STV for most elections in N Ireland as a way of coping with N Irish politics. Israel is N Ireland, more complicated.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I would love to see some modelling of how an FPTP election would come out in Israel. I've looked in the past and can't find anything.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
"The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great." - A change in the UK voting system would have a huge impact on the parties in the UK, so I'm not prepared to accept that claim here and by implication elsewhere either.
"An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense." - Since I used the word "facilitated" rather than "explaining everything", you are trying to create a straw man. There's a reasonable case to be made that alternative electoral systems - including some of the less strictly proportional PR alternatives - would have accorded extremists much less influence in Israel. One which you airily dismiss as "obvious nonsense".
"You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties"." - Fine, in the case of Israel I'll rephrase that to "a myriad of tiny parties with significant collective parliamentary representation between them".
You seem convinced as to the merits of STV. What electoral system are you assuming that would I favour if I could pick and choose?
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Reserving spots against the wall? Hmmm... Makes note....
- First class spots include a silk hanky (clean), in colour of your choice - Upholstered chair - Sun roof/rain protection
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
And if there is a company/government body where the median white person works in a call centre but the median ethnic minority person works in IT on 30% more, what do Labour propose to "correct" that situation?
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
The effects would be quite limited over the next Parliament. I think you're being overly dramatic.
Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
1997 says hello.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
Yes, totally agree. I had a similar experience in Switzerland, where direct democracy means referenda every 3 months on diverse issues. I knew lots of Swiss couples who would set aside an evening each quarter to go through the arguments and decide what they favoured on each topic. Who had proposed the idea and whether they were left or right was secondary.
I bet those couples were fun at dinner parties.
Do we need to be reminded about Nick P's anecdote about the fun couples (and more) get up to in Switzerland?
Or was that Denmark?
Still the most shocking thing in politics since the SDP.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
On Russian media suggestions that they have a crack at Poland.
Poland would be the last country I'd try to fuck with. Hell I'd bomb Germany over Poland. Their SOF guys are all 6+ foot tall behemoths built like brick walls. And believe it or not, the Poles are pretty protective of their culture and land much like Ukrainians are. The Poles would scorched earth Russia in the event of a war. You'd see granny's chucking molotovs much like in Ukraine and everyone and their dogs grabbing rifles.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It's normal politics aimed at dim people and pressure groups to purport to specify and particularise as illegal something that already is. Someone in the HoC was, IIRC, trying to make a specific offence out of stealing a cat; which of course it already is under the Theft Act, as is stealing a pencil, an aardvark, a packet of boiled sweets or a hairbrush. Some dreary MP can make a local headline out of proposing a special bill for any of these.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Reserving spots against the wall? Hmmm... Makes note....
- First class spots include a silk hanky (clean), in colour of your choice - Upholstered chair - Sun roof/rain protection
Wasn’t one of the Easter Rising prisoners shot while tied to a chair? Because he’d been wounded too badly to be able to stand.
On Russian media suggestions that they have a crack at Poland.
Poland would be the last country I'd try to fuck with. Hell I'd bomb Germany over Poland. Their SOF guys are all 6+ foot tall behemoths built like brick walls. And believe it or not, the Poles are pretty protective of their culture and land much like Ukrainians are. The Poles would scorched earth Russia in the event of a war. You'd see granny's chucking molotovs much like in Ukraine and everyone and their dogs grabbing rifles.
That's nonsense. The Poles are always divided and fighting among themselves. However, one thing that will unite the nation utterly, and completely, is fighting Russians.
No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
Proving FPTP is inequitable.
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.
Reform UK are very pro PR.
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.
If giving parliamentary representation proportional to public support is genuinely a seriously bad idea for any particular reason, possibly we have greater issues with the electorate (and the principles of democracy itself) than we knew.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Reserving spots against the wall? Hmmm... Makes note....
- First class spots include a silk hanky (clean), in colour of your choice - Upholstered chair - Sun roof/rain protection
Wasn’t one of the Easter Rising prisoners shot while tied to a chair? Because he’d been wounded too badly to be able to stand.
Yup - fairly standard practice with firing squads in various countries.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I would love to see some modelling of how an FPTP election would come out in Israel. I've looked in the past and can't find anything.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
"The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great." - A change in the UK voting system would have a huge impact on the parties in the UK, so I'm not prepared to accept that claim here and by implication elsewhere either.
"An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense." - Since I used the word "facilitated" rather than "explaining everything", you are trying to create a straw man. There's a reasonable case to be made that alternative electoral systems - including some of the less strictly proportional PR alternatives - would have accorded extremists much less influence in Israel. One which you airily dismiss as "obvious nonsense".
"You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties"." - Fine, in the case of Israel I'll rephrase that to "a myriad of tiny parties with significant collective parliamentary representation between them".
You seem convinced as to the merits of STV. What electoral system are you assuming that would I favour if I could pick and choose?
What’s your evidence that a “change in the UK voting system would have a huge impact on the parties in the UK”? The obvious comparison is New Zealand. They switched from FPTP to PR and it didn’t have a huge impact on their party system. Have you read Lijphart’s 1984 “Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian & Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries”? Great book.
If there’s a case to be made that less proportionality would have reduced the influence of extremist parties in Israel, make it. Show us how different voting systems would have played out. The problem in Israel is that the extremist parties would do well under most voting systems. The moderate Labor are struggling to get over the threshold. The Religious Zionist Party, among the most extreme, are the third largest party.
I don’t know what your preferred electoral system is. If you want to tell us, tell us. There’s no need for rhetorical games.
Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
1997 says hello.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
Yes, totally agree. I had a similar experience in Switzerland, where direct democracy means referenda every 3 months on diverse issues. I knew lots of Swiss couples who would set aside an evening each quarter to go through the arguments and decide what they favoured on each topic. Who had proposed the idea and whether they were left or right was secondary.
I bet those couples were fun at dinner parties.
Do we need to be reminded about Nick P's anecdote about the fun couples (and more) get up to in Switzerland?
Or was that Denmark?
Still the most shocking thing in politics since the SDP.
One of the great moment of PB.
On the village green match, various batsmen posing, as usual. The quiet old chap who normally bowls slow, moderate spin, suddenly runs up and delivers a supersonic ball. With enough spin to alter space time, locally. The batsman as the crease looks in wonder at the smoking hole though his bat, and through the stumps, beyond.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
A lawyer. Superb
Another lawyer here and I just don't understand this. Race is a protected characteristic under s9. It provides: 9 Race (1) Race includes— (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins. (2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group. (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls. (4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group. The rest of the section gives a Minister the power to alter it if this is not comprehensive enough.
s39 of the Equality Act provides that you cannot be discriminated against in respect of a protected characteristic in respect of employment including hiring, terms and conditions, dismissals and discipline etc.
What, exactly is this new Act supposed to do, other than repeat the laws brought in by the Coalition in 2010 so politicians can feel good about themselves?
Their SOF guys are all 6+ foot tall behemoths built like brick walls.
Can confirm. We had GROM come through Basra and our CO said something to the effect of, "For fuck's sake, don't let them stay. We'll never be able to feed them."
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
There’s a longer clip which shows it more clearly. Talking about meeting someone who died 30 years ago is in a different category from mixing up two names from the present.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
We are now one Audi e-tron GT accident away from King Harry. (and Queen You-Know-Who, LOL)
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
That's absolutely awesome news, Big G. I knew you'd ace it!
Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
1997 says hello.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
Yes, totally agree. I had a similar experience in Switzerland, where direct democracy means referenda every 3 months on diverse issues. I knew lots of Swiss couples who would set aside an evening each quarter to go through the arguments and decide what they favoured on each topic. Who had proposed the idea and whether they were left or right was secondary.
I bet those couples were fun at dinner parties.
Do we need to be reminded about Nick P's anecdote about the fun couples (and more) get up to in Switzerland?
Or was that Denmark?
Still the most shocking thing in politics since the SDP.
One of the great moment of PB.
On the village green match, various batsmen posing, as usual. The quiet old chap who normally bowls slow, moderate spin, suddenly runs up and delivers a supersonic ball. With enough spin to alter space time, locally. The batsman as the crease looks in wonder at the smoking hole though his bat, and through the stumps, beyond.
We forget that FPTP was designed before the party system. The fact that party identification and whips have become so important and the parties themselves so much of a bubble has made it a little perverse. The one thing the parties do have is a reasonable survival mechanism.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
I know he often fibs and nearly always fumbles his point, but he doesn’t make up everything
You rely on ad hominems that are really not good. You need to take some lessons from Malc, who is far above you in the quality of his insults.
Something was nagging at me the other day when reading on here. Your "debating" style reminded me of something from my childhood, but I couldn't quite remember what. Then it came back to me.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Discharge after pacemaker insertion is super quick nowadays. My mum, early last year, was out on a similar timescale.
All best wishes, Big G.
The modern thing is to get you up and out of hospital as fast as possible.
There was a seminal study, years back, that if you spent more than x time in a hospital bed, your chances of getting bedridden soared.
I’m convinced that I’d have been a lot better off at home with support, than in the ‘rehabilitation’ unit where I spent a month or so just before Christmas 2022.
My mum has had extended stays (month+) in a couple, Brentwood and Thurrock. While one was better than the other, neither really helped her particularly. I think they're potentially good for a fairly simple thing like a broken bone that needs a good programme of physio to get mobility back (and can be more efficient for that than home visits, I can appreciate). But for more complex things, they can just be a bit of a holding pen. My mum was offered some physio, but had other, cognitive, issues and spent most of the time in Thurrock outside visiting hours alone in a room with no one to talk to. Was definitely a downwards trajectory there and only stabilised/improved a little on coming home.
My Mother in law has dementia and they basically didn't bother with physio or rehabilitation in hospital after she had a fall (broken leg).
It basically took Mrs Flatlander sitting there half the day and being a total pain in the arse to get her up and about at all and a lot of argument and effort to get her out of hospital.
You'd think they'd be grateful that we were prepared to stop the bed blocking but we were treated with suspicion (of what, exactly?) throughout.
I think their preferred outcome was to leave her to rot in a corner until finding an excuse to put her on the 'pathway'. Got an infection? Oh, never mind, more opiates for you.
The sad thing is that they did a really good job of fixing the break.
Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
1997 says hello.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
Yes, totally agree. I had a similar experience in Switzerland, where direct democracy means referenda every 3 months on diverse issues. I knew lots of Swiss couples who would set aside an evening each quarter to go through the arguments and decide what they favoured on each topic. Who had proposed the idea and whether they were left or right was secondary.
I bet those couples were fun at dinner parties.
As against PB-ers, with their fascinating anecdotes about the d'Hondt system, and the unreliability of Scottish subsamples?
Republicans are absurdly overrepresented on pb.com.
There’s a longer clip which shows it more clearly. Talking about meeting someone who died 30 years ago is in a different category from mixing up two names from the present.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
I know he often fibs and nearly always fumbles his point, but he doesn’t make up everything
You rely on ad hominems that are really not good. You need to take some lessons from Malc, who is far above you in the quality of his insults.
Something was nagging at me the other day when reading on here. Your "debating" style reminded me of something from my childhood, but I couldn't quite remember what. Then it came back to me.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
The effects would be quite limited over the next Parliament. I think you're being overly dramatic.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
The effects would be quite limited over the next Parliament. I think you're being overly dramatic.
Leon being overly dramatic? Never.
I was hesitant to suggest such a thing, but sometimes you just have to stick your neck out.
I don't quite understand this proposal. Is it not already illegal to pay someone who is 'Black, asian, minority ethnic or disabled' a different salary to, I assume a white or able-bodied person)?
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
I didn’t understand that proposal either.
It makes a load of money for lefty lawyers and it makes a lot of lefty lawmakers feel virtuous and it will do nothing but bad regressive things for companies and corporations and it will be racially divisive
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
In what way is extending the provisions of the equal pay provisions of the Equality Act 2010 "pernicious or dangerous"? Seems a minor but logical extension of an existing provision if you ask me. But what would I know. I'm a "lefty lawyer" and my opinion doesn't count, indeed I have reserved my spot on the wall to be up against when your Strongman arrives.
Omg you’re a lawyer
lol
Yeah. Lol. I was inspired to become one when I read your dribbling output. I figured you might need someone to help sue your parents.
A lawyer. Superb
Another lawyer here and I just don't understand this. Race is a protected characteristic under s9. It provides: 9 Race (1) Race includes— (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins. (2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group. (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls. (4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group. The rest of the section gives a Minister the power to alter it if this is not comprehensive enough.
s39 of the Equality Act provides that you cannot be discriminated against in respect of a protected characteristic in respect of employment including hiring, terms and conditions, dismissals and discipline etc.
What, exactly is this new Act supposed to do, other than repeat the laws brought in by the Coalition in 2010 so politicians can feel good about themselves?
It has been claimed that if the issue in Birmingham had been a racial division, not sex, then the lawsuit would not have been possible.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Comments
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
The last time I was seriously concerned about the threat to democracy in the USA was back in the seventies during peak Nixon. Trump however is a far more serious and real threat than Tricky Dicky ever was.
It would make it challenging to form stable governments without them.
He looked astonished.....
*Someone wrote a brilliant post on soc.history.what-if about Nixon faking tapes - that implicated the Democrats in all kinds of shady stuff. Complete with Nixon high mindidly stating that for The Good of The Country the crimes of the Democrats must remain a secret....
All best wishes, Big G.
Here's Rishi Sunak, who this morning claimed that "I'm not a betting man" in order to distance himself from his £1,000 bet with Piers Morgan... boasting about his love of spread betting.
https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1754807797965811814?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Meanwhile, in the real world, a chubby football hooligan gets convicted at the local magistrates court for piddling in public next to a minor war memorial.
There was a seminal study, years back, that if you spent more than x time in a hospital bed, your chances of getting bedridden soared.
*I'm referring to Charlie's downstairs, not the man himself.
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
And, not all GOP members/politicians are deeply unpleasant people either, but many of those most in the public eye do appear to be.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/republic/pages/734/attachments/original/1704732637/48_per_cent_table_savanta_January_2024.pdf?1704732637
has:
What would you prefer for the UK?
A monarchy 48%
An elected head of state 32%
Don't know 20%
The latest Yougov (15-16 Jan 2024) is similar
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Republic_Monarchy_240116_W.pdf
A monarchy 45%
An elected head of state 31%
Don't know 24%
..Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be...
I suppose this reactionary silliness shows us that - to paraphrase Clemenceau- you have gone from enfant terrible to old curmudgeon without the usual interval of mature reflection.
Or was that Denmark?
But then, to see that, you'd need a greater perspective: ie you'd need to travel the world a lot AND have an open mind, so I see the problem for quite a few PB-ers
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00346-8
Leon should be delighted, since it involves both AI, and epicurean delights.
..The achievement has ignited the usually slow-moving world of ancient studies. It’s “what I always thought was a pipe dream coming true”, says Kenneth Lapatin, curator of antiquities at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, California, who was not involved in the contest. The revealed text discusses sources of pleasure including music, the taste of capers and the colour purple. “It’s an historic moment,” says classicist Bob Fowler at the University of Bristol, UK, one of the prize judges. The three students, from Egypt, Switzerland and the United States, who revealed the text share a US$700,000 grand prize...
Connection here being different to fandom. Eg Bob Dylan is a genuine idol of mine, and I know I'd feel deeply sad if misfortune befell him, but I don't feel a big 'connection' with Bob the person. Whereas with Tiger I do. If he misses a putt, say, it's like I've missed it. That's how I feel. We're both of us playing when he's playing. It's quite an intense experience. Less of it now of course since he's semi-retired.
The Royals, no, not really. Although I feel a bit more for Charles than I did for the late Queen. I think it's because he's shown us who he is over the years, there's a vulnerability there, more of a 3d person, an ok one imo, whereas she was something of a void (to me).
https://x.com/edcumming/status/1754508139003580918?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
EDIT: The study showed your probability of losing mobility, soared in older people, corrected for other factors. Picking up an infection was a whole other thing...
And if I was still living in the UK it would be a bit harder, but I would still MUCH rather Conservatives + Democrats, than Labour + Republicans.
a) some of those 10 Israeli "parties" are actually alliances of other parties (the Arab List and National Unity being the obvious examples) - some of those alliances might be formalised under FPTP, but others might not, eg I'm not sure whether and how the different Arab parties break down along geographical lines.
b) it's a much smaller country - 120 MKs vs 650 MPS, meaning an average party size of 12 vs 65.
c) spread is also very different and much more important to coalition forming - the 1 Green UK MP makes very little difference to left wing representation next to the 200-odd Labour MPs currently in the Commons, whereas a small Israeli party meeting the threshold and getting 3-5 MKs (versus not hitting the threshold) can make a massive difference in terms of what coalitions are possible.
"Myriad of tiny parties" is a bit of an exaggeration, but the general point being made is valid.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1754609476294918227
Will he also legislate that the sun will rise each morning? What is he going after?
Consider the phrase "Equal pay for equal work"
The Birmingham case arose from women being paid less, for a *different jobs*, that was judged to be *equivalent* to the higher paid jobs that the men were doing.
What this is about, is trying to define "different but equivalent" jobs.
So of course Labour will do it
It’s partly because they can’t do anything else to please the left. So we will get tons of pernicious or dangerous Woke bulllshit like this
System change merely, in most cases, moves the imperfections around and causes confusion, and can take decades for the voting public to catch up.
Personally I want the smallest possible chance of centrists having to do deals with the simplistic and authoritarian right or the ideological and totalitarian left. In the UK FPTP achieves this as well as is realistic even though it isn't perfect. Even in the exceptional circumstances of 2027 and 2019 the system just about held on.
If we suppose that the current plan is to hang on for a December 12th election, with dissolution in early November, then the timetable would be put out of kilter by the untimely death of the Monarch.
I don't know what would happen to the date of the election were a Monarch to die between dissolution and polling day, but if the Monarch died in the couple of days before the election was announced, then it would presumably be delayed for a couple of weeks - and then necessarily until the New Year, if the original date was 12th December.
- A change in the UK voting system would have a huge impact on the parties in the UK, so I'm not prepared to accept that claim here and by implication elsewhere either.
"An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense."
- Since I used the word "facilitated" rather than "explaining everything", you are trying to create a straw man. There's a reasonable case to be made that alternative electoral systems - including some of the less strictly proportional PR alternatives - would have accorded extremists much less influence in Israel. One which you airily dismiss as "obvious nonsense".
"You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties"."
- Fine, in the case of Israel I'll rephrase that to "a myriad of tiny parties with significant collective parliamentary representation between them".
You seem convinced as to the merits of STV. What electoral system are you assuming that would I favour if I could pick and choose?
lol
- First class spots include a silk hanky (clean), in colour of your choice
- Upholstered chair
- Sun roof/rain protection
Poland would be the last country I'd try to fuck with. Hell I'd bomb Germany over Poland.
Their SOF guys are all 6+ foot tall behemoths built like brick walls. And believe it or not, the Poles are pretty protective of their culture and land much like Ukrainians are.
The Poles would scorched earth Russia in the event of a war. You'd see granny's chucking molotovs much like in Ukraine and everyone and their dogs grabbing rifles.
At least Germany, You'd have a chance attacking as they are divided, and the population is far less patriotic and harmonized making them weak.
https://twitter.com/IhateTrenches/status/1754839340872523945
Because he’d been wounded too badly to be able to stand.
“Biden, living in a parallel universe between yesterday and today
Biden said he recently spoke with the dead Francois Mitterrand, who died in 1996:
https://x.com/sprinter99800/status/1754842891522920899?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
That is not “a stammer”. That is dementia
I know he often fibs and nearly always fumbles his point, but he doesn’t make up everything
Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
https://www.sealionpress.co.uk/post/westminster-with-proportional-representation-part-1
(The Point of Divergence - how it could have started)
https://www.sealionpress.co.uk/post/westminster-with-proportional-representation-part-2
(The initial effects)
https://www.sealionpress.co.uk/post/westminster-with-proportional-representation-part-3
(Present day)
Of course, it's all subjective
If there’s a case to be made that less proportionality would have reduced the influence of extremist parties in Israel, make it. Show us how different voting systems would have played out. The problem in Israel is that the extremist parties would do well under most voting systems. The moderate Labor are struggling to get over the threshold. The Religious Zionist Party, among the most extreme, are the third largest party.
I don’t know what your preferred electoral system is. If you want to tell us, tell us. There’s no need for rhetorical games.
On the village green match, various batsmen posing, as usual. The quiet old chap who normally bowls slow, moderate spin, suddenly runs up and delivers a supersonic ball. With enough spin to alter space time, locally. The batsman as the crease looks in wonder at the smoking hole though his bat, and through the stumps, beyond.
9 Race
(1) Race includes—
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins.
(2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group.
(3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls.
(4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group.
The rest of the section gives a Minister the power to alter it if this is not comprehensive enough.
s39 of the Equality Act provides that you cannot be discriminated against in respect of a protected characteristic in respect of employment including hiring, terms and conditions, dismissals and discipline etc.
What, exactly is this new Act supposed to do, other than repeat the laws brought in by the Coalition in 2010 so politicians can feel good about themselves?
https://x.com/marionawfal/status/1754702343013044353
Starmer ‘unwavering’ over Labour green pledge despite claims party dropping it
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/06/keir-starmer-labours-28bn-green-investment-desperately-needed
This is of far more moment than any minor woke bollocks.
So pleased for you!
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
Something was nagging at me the other day when reading on here. Your "debating" style reminded me of something from my childhood, but I couldn't quite remember what. Then it came back to me.
"That's you that is."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhrD5SVo3OU
It basically took Mrs Flatlander sitting there half the day and being a total pain in the arse to get her up and about at all and a lot of argument and effort to get her out of hospital.
You'd think they'd be grateful that we were prepared to stop the bed blocking but we were treated with suspicion (of what, exactly?) throughout.
I think their preferred outcome was to leave her to rot in a corner until finding an excuse to put her on the 'pathway'. Got an infection? Oh, never mind, more opiates for you.
The sad thing is that they did a really good job of fixing the break.
Other wards in other hospitals may be different.
Perhaps if I really really work at my prose I could one day get paid for it! On really prestigious magazines?
Or even maybe write a book that goes to number 1!!! But lol. I accept that’s not me; don’t have the natural gift
Like you I toil in the anonymous mines of mediocrity and it’s ok. I’ve accepted that is my fate, as it is yours
@PB_Lawyers?
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.