"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Should MPs also be required to take one of your "civics" tests?
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
Plenty of highly educated people have made terrible political decisions. Trotsky and Pol Pot being two examples off the top of my head. Conversely many people with little formal education have been decent, humane politicians. Callaghan and John Major according to taste. What is the point of your question?
More black holes than there are pot holes in the roads....
Well you can lay that directly at the Tories’ door. They have left the books in a complete mess, seemingly. Embarrassing.
That’s just Labour spin, the £22bn figure has already been debunked.
Both major parties were not straight with us in the Election. The choice was either tax rises or austerity and strikes. The existing tax and spend plans guaranteed one or other or both.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Should MPs also be required to take one of your "civics" tests?
They should be required to pass a basic maths test!
Jap 0.94 Ger 2.40 Fra 3.12 Can 3.24 Ita 3.64 USA 4.29 UK 4.43
Britain is still sleepwalking in the belief that everything is, or should be normal. It's not long ago that the UK had borrowing costs in the middle- to top end of G7 rates and a AAA rating (for what those are worth). Both parties of government have an interest in not discussing the debt burden though, and no-one else (or no-one credible) seems bothered about talking about it either. Too difficult; leave it for another day. Which is fine other than that strategy means the 'other day' will end up being at someone else's choosing.
Do bear in mind that borrowing rates also reflect likely economic growth.
Japan has low rates not because it has sound public finances, but because banks are required to hold JGBs, and there are no better places to invest the money.
Yes, the Japanese rates are, on the face of it, absurd. Enormous debt and an aging and declining population. Still, I don't think the relative rates are wholly without meaning.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
There is a difference between earned privileges and innate human rights.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Is this some sudden conversion you've had or a longstanding belief? I cannot recall your intense antipathy for universal suffrage coming up before.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Is this some sudden conversion you've had or a longstanding belief? I cannot recall your intense antipathy for universal suffrage coming up before.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
There is a difference between earned privileges and innate human rights.
I don't actually think there's much innate about human rights, though that is no argument in favour of barriers to electoral participation in the manner described.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
There is a difference between earned privileges and innate human rights.
Is voting an innate right? Is there also an innate right to vote under a particular system? Perhaps FPTP should be challenged at the ECHR.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Indeed.
Some obvious ones:
Explain the difference between the Conference of Berlin and the Congress of Berlin.
Evaluate the significance of Timothy Hackworth.
To what extent was Northumberland justified in putting Jane on the throne?
The most important battle in English history was not Hastings but Brunanburh. Discuss.
To what extent is loose fiscal policy to blame for the current situation of Scotland?
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
There is a difference between earned privileges and innate human rights.
I don't actually think there's much innate about human rights, though that is no argument in favour of barriers to electoral participation in the manner described.
I think there is.
To take these two examples, we assume everyone has the right to vote unless we remove it in extreme circumstances (prison); whereas we assume you have no right to drive until you can prove you are safe to do so.
Different starting points. Some things are rights, and some things are privileges.
What job, if any, does Badenoch offer Jenrick in her Shadow Cabinet? Or vice-versa? And would the loser take it?
Offer Northern Ireland and it's too obvious.
Shadow Home Secretary.
One of the great offices of state, but shut out of economic policy.
Put him in charge of the Rwanda policy.
And give him a one-way ticket...
To be boringly serious for a moment, Bobby kicked off this round of voting insisting to be Conservative Candidate at the next election will need to sign up to coming out of the ECHR. If Kemi distances herself from withdrawal from ECHR in order to make the Conservatives seem electable, could Jenrick even sit in her Shadow Cabinet?
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Is this some sudden conversion you've had or a longstanding belief? I cannot recall your intense antipathy for universal suffrage coming up before.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
No but it certainly led to movements like the Chartists and suffragettes marching and protesting and occasionally even turning violent to get the vote for working class people and women. Otherwise if you go back to a franchise where only middle class male property owners vote inevitably only their concerns will largely be focused on
So I think of the card carrying pb blue lovelies, @Casino_Royale@TSE@MaxPB and yours truly have voted for Kemi while @HYUFD and @Mortimer backed Jenrick. And @MarqueeMark 'abstained'. Have I missed anyone?
The result will be announced at 11.00 am on Saturday.
Indeed, for my part I voted for Boris in 2019, Rishi last time and Jenrick this time.
If Kemi does win it will be only the second time the more moderate of the final 2 won the Tory leadership election with members.
The other was when Cameron beat Davis in 2005 (though before he won the backing of Francois and the ERG and jumped on the anti immigration bandwagon Jenrick had been a Cameroon) so it is a close call which of them is more centrist. Kemi opposing Jenrick's support for pulling out of the ECHR though and winning the backing of Osborne, Green, Hague and Gove makes her the more centrist of the two now
She didn't 'win the support' of those people, she is their candidate.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Indeed.
Some obvious ones:
Explain the difference between the Conference of Berlin and the Congress of Berlin.
Evaluate the significance of Timothy Hackworth.
To what extent was Northumberland justified in putting Jane on the throne?
The most important battle in English history was not Hastings but Brunanburh. Discuss.
To what extent is loose fiscal policy to blame for the current situation of Scotland?
Robin Hood never wore tights on Sunday afternoons. Why?
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
There is a difference between earned privileges and innate human rights.
I don't actually think there's much innate about human rights, though that is no argument in favour of barriers to electoral participation in the manner described.
I think there is.
To take these two examples, we assume everyone has the right to vote unless we remove it in extreme circumstances (prison); whereas we assume you have no right to drive until you can prove you are safe to do so.
Different starting points. Some things are rights, and some things are privileges.
Yes, but it's not innate in the sense of essential to the nature of being human. Human rights are inventions - mostly very good inventions which we should endeavour to uphold or expand, but I quibble over the terminology.
In fact that such positive things are not innate to our nature makes it more impressive and praiseworthy that we develop and inculcate them. That's why its great that democracy, though rare historically, is seen as inherently the right thing to the point even most tyrannical regimes at least pretend to be democratic.
It scares me that some regimes might stop even with the pretence.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Indeed.
Some obvious ones:
Explain the difference between the Conference of Berlin and the Congress of Berlin.
Evaluate the significance of Timothy Hackworth.
To what extent was Northumberland justified in putting Jane on the throne?
The most important battle in English history was not Hastings but Brunanburh. Discuss.
To what extent is loose fiscal policy to blame for the current situation of Scotland?
Robin Hood never wore tights on Sunday afternoons. Why?
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Indeed.
Some obvious ones:
Explain the difference between the Conference of Berlin and the Congress of Berlin.
Evaluate the significance of Timothy Hackworth.
To what extent was Northumberland justified in putting Jane on the throne?
The most important battle in English history was not Hastings but Brunanburh. Discuss.
To what extent is loose fiscal policy to blame for the current situation of Scotland?
Robin Hood never wore tights on Sunday afternoons. Why?
Judging by the Yougov members poll I expect it to be close, indeed the closest Tory leadership result since members got the vote. That would also match by conversations with other members.
Badenoch should win though but will have to include other leadership contenders in her Shadow Cabinet
Rishi’s parting gift to his successors is his demonstration yesterday of what a passionate, effective speech as LOTO looks like. I’m not convinced either of them will clear the bar he has now set?
Yes, if Rishi had a political brain not just an economic one he would not have tried to remove Boris but let him lead the party to defeat in July. However it would have been a narrower defeat and Reform would have got nowhere near 14% of the vote and the Tories got over 200 seats.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Leader of the Opposition to an already unpopular Labour government instead of his political career being cut short after he led the party to landslide defeat and trying to get on the board of some Silicon Valley Tech Company.
I’m not sure Boris would have kept Rishk as Chancellor for the full term would he? I’m scratching my memory banks now but wasn’t there a lot of noise at the time of his resignation that Boris was considering replacing him?
No not really, it was Boris who fast tracked Rishi to Chancellor
Yes, but there were very big questions about Rishi continuing in the role, due to the fact that he was quite shit at it.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Indeed.
Some obvious ones:
Explain the difference between the Conference of Berlin and the Congress of Berlin.
Evaluate the significance of Timothy Hackworth.
To what extent was Northumberland justified in putting Jane on the throne?
The most important battle in English history was not Hastings but Brunanburh. Discuss.
To what extent is loose fiscal policy to blame for the current situation of Scotland?
Well, I'm prepared to make a stab at two of these.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Indeed.
Some obvious ones:
Explain the difference between the Conference of Berlin and the Congress of Berlin.
Evaluate the significance of Timothy Hackworth.
To what extent was Northumberland justified in putting Jane on the throne?
The most important battle in English history was not Hastings but Brunanburh. Discuss.
To what extent is loose fiscal policy to blame for the current situation of Scotland?
Well, I'm prepared to make a stab at two of these.
They were loosely based on the questions the Nazis asked in the early stages of Aktion T4.
It is slightly disturbing nobody picked up on that parody...
Judging by the Yougov members poll I expect it to be close, indeed the closest Tory leadership result since members got the vote. That would also match by conversations with other members.
Badenoch should win though but will have to include other leadership contenders in her Shadow Cabinet
Rishi’s parting gift to his successors is his demonstration yesterday of what a passionate, effective speech as LOTO looks like. I’m not convinced either of them will clear the bar he has now set?
Yes, if Rishi had a political brain not just an economic one he would not have tried to remove Boris but let him lead the party to defeat in July. However it would have been a narrower defeat and Reform would have got nowhere near 14% of the vote and the Tories got over 200 seats.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Leader of the Opposition to an already unpopular Labour government instead of his political career being cut short after he led the party to landslide defeat and trying to get on the board of some Silicon Valley Tech Company.
I’m not sure Boris would have kept Rishk as Chancellor for the full term would he? I’m scratching my memory banks now but wasn’t there a lot of noise at the time of his resignation that Boris was considering replacing him?
No not really, it was Boris who fast tracked Rishi to Chancellor
Yes, but there were very big questions about Rishi continuing in the role, due to the fact that he was quite shit at it.
His star had certainly been on the wane for some time by then, from its heady heights. It may well have impacted his own decision-making process.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
No but it certainly led to movements like the Chartists and suffragettes marching and protesting and occasionally even turning violent to get the vote for working class people and women. Otherwise if you go back to a franchise where only middle class male property owners vote inevitably only their concerns will largely be focused on
Chartists didn't turn violent. It was the Tories who did.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
There is a difference between earned privileges and innate human rights.
I don't actually think there's much innate about human rights, though that is no argument in favour of barriers to electoral participation in the manner described.
I think there is.
To take these two examples, we assume everyone has the right to vote unless we remove it in extreme circumstances (prison); whereas we assume you have no right to drive until you can prove you are safe to do so.
Different starting points. Some things are rights, and some things are privileges.
Yes, but it's not innate in the sense of essential to the nature of being human. Human rights are inventions - mostly very good inventions which we should endeavour to uphold or expand, but I quibble over the terminology.
In fact that such positive things are not innate to our nature makes it more impressive and praiseworthy that we develop and inculcate them. That's why its great that democracy, though rare historically, is seen as inherently the right thing to the point even most tyrannical regimes at least pretend to be democratic.
It scares me that some regimes might stop even with the pretence.
I’m not sure. If we agree that a right to a say is a good proxy for a right to vote, in the more primitive setting of 20,000 years ago; then I would argue that the fact that we assume that right and choose to cooperate and compromise is one of the reasons our species is master of earth. A form of democracy is baked in and we’re restless without it.
What job, if any, does Badenoch offer Jenrick in her Shadow Cabinet? Or vice-versa? And would the loser take it?
Offer Northern Ireland and it's too obvious.
Shadow Home Secretary.
One of the great offices of state, but shut out of economic policy.
Put him in charge of the Rwanda policy.
And give him a one-way ticket...
To be boringly serious for a moment, Bobby kicked off this round of voting insisting to be Conservative Candidate at the next election will need to sign up to coming out of the ECHR. If Kemi distances herself from withdrawal from ECHR in order to make the Conservatives seem electable, could Jenrick even sit in her Shadow Cabinet?
He's reinvented himself from Cameroon remainer to his current outlook so I would not be surprised.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Indeed.
Some obvious ones:
Explain the difference between the Conference of Berlin and the Congress of Berlin.
Evaluate the significance of Timothy Hackworth.
To what extent was Northumberland justified in putting Jane on the throne?
The most important battle in English history was not Hastings but Brunanburh. Discuss.
To what extent is loose fiscal policy to blame for the current situation of Scotland?
Well, I'm prepared to make a stab at two of these.
They were loosely based on the questions the Nazis asked in the early stages of Aktion T4.
It is slightly disturbing nobody picked up on that parody...
More black holes than there are pot holes in the roads....
The numbers always looked shifty. I did a detailed calculation on here earlier this year that put VAT on private schools as revenue neutral _at best_ based on assumptions on elasticity of demand derived from the 2008 era financial crisis. The 1.7bn a year she expects to raise raised eyebrows. And made me assume all her other projections were vastly over-optimistic as behaviour changes and growth falls.
This is genuinely a disastrous, back to the 1970s tax and spend budget that hammers the private sector while giving to the public sector with no real expectation of improvements in efficiency.
Labour don't know how to grow the economy. Or even make tough choices. All they know is tax 'n' spend, tax 'n' spend.
I was personally planning to dump over £1m of capital gains next year, expecting to pay circa £300k in tax. I now plan to hold the vast majority of my existing assets for the next five years and sell only a small amount for comfort, it's that or move abroad. Either way I will be paying less tax next year than I planned to six months ago.
Tax rises change behaviour. Basing predicted income on optimistic assessments of limited behavioural change will end in tears.
As you say, Rachel will be back with more, higher tax demands next year.
There's been a lot of comment along the lines that Labour don't know how to grow the economy.
But as I mentioned yesterday, Labour had, and possibly still have, a well' worked plan for growing the economy, honed for three years and supported by many economists.
This plan was in large part dropped or postponed, because the Tories were weaponising it into a populist line of attack on taxes and spending.
So, if we are now left with no immediate or obvious guidemap to Growth, the Tory Party and tory press would be well-advised to reflect on their share of the responsibility for that.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
The Americans demanded no taxation without representation, I put it to you as follows - there should be no representation without taxation. Those who are not net payers into the treasury and take out more than they earn should not be entitled to representation and should be immediately disenfranchised.
More black holes than there are pot holes in the roads....
The numbers always looked shifty. I did a detailed calculation on here earlier this year that put VAT on private schools as revenue neutral _at best_ based on assumptions on elasticity of demand derived from the 2008 era financial crisis. The 1.7bn a year she expects to raise raised eyebrows. And made me assume all her other projections were vastly over-optimistic as behaviour changes and growth falls.
This is genuinely a disastrous, back to the 1970s tax and spend budget that hammers the private sector while giving to the public sector with no real expectation of improvements in efficiency.
Labour don't know how to grow the economy. Or even make tough choices. All they know is tax 'n' spend, tax 'n' spend.
I was personally planning to dump over £1m of capital gains next year, expecting to pay circa £300k in tax. I now plan to hold the vast majority of my existing assets for the next five years and sell only a small amount for comfort, it's that or move abroad. Either way I will be paying less tax next year than I planned to six months ago.
Tax rises change behaviour. Basing predicted income on optimistic assessments of limited behavioural change will end in tears.
As you say, Rachel will be back with more, higher tax demands next year.
There's been a lot of comment along the lines that Labour don't know how to grow the economy.
But as I mentioned yesterday, Labour had, and possibly still have, a well' worked plan for growing the economy, honed for three years and supported by many economists.
This plan was in large part dropped or postponed, because the Tories were weaponising it into a populist line of attack on taxes and spending.
So, if we are now left with no immediate or obvious guidemap to Growth, the Tory Party and tory press would be well-advised to reflect on their share of the responsibility for that.
Do you have a link to that? I was unaware of it, would be fascinated to read it. As a right wing/Austrian economics meanie I dare say I'd disagree with it, but Labour sort of feel like Season 4 Battlestar Galactica Cylons right now, i.e. there is no plan.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Being at least partly tongue in cheek, I always liked the suggestion of my brother in law.
He holds that the ballot paper should have the names, photographs, party and 1 headline party policy of each candidate. But they should be all mixed up. For your vote to count you have to be able to link the name, photo, party and policy of your chosen candidate on the ballot paper. Anything else is a spoiled ballot.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
The Americans demanded no taxation without representation, I put it to you as follows - there should be no representation without taxation. Those who are not net payers into the treasury and take out more than they earn should not be entitled to representation and should be immediately disenfranchised.
(Copyright Alan B'Stard MP, 1989).
Does that mean anyone having a major (and costly) operation is permanetly disenfrachised?
Alarm bells reporting from @MHackman for those who care about the future of our country: Trump's advisors are preparing massive cuts to *LEGAL* immigration as soon as he enters office. Everything from families and refugees to skilled workers is threatened. Economic insanity! https://x.com/David_J_Bier/status/1852043135850803505
More black holes than there are pot holes in the roads....
Well you can lay that directly at the Tories’ door. They have left the books in a complete mess, seemingly. Embarrassing.
They did. The trouble is the mess was caused by not being properly conservative. Bloating the state, whacking up the tax burden, losing control of immigration, losing control of the quangocracy and the administrative state, leaving people festering on welfare, keeping us in lock-step with the EU, delivering us the highest energy costs in the developed world.
But instead of being replaced by a genuinely conservative opposition, they've been replaced by an opposition whose position on all those things is that we need more of them. It's a disaster. We needed a Millei; we got a Milliband.
Even for the left wing it's not good - you needed to come in doing a bit of leftism after public services had been starved a bit and the private sector had thrived so there was money to chuck at them. This is a disaster for left wingery - this detestable Labour Government of none of the talents is going to see your lot out of power for at least 14 more years if you're lucky.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
The Americans demanded no taxation without representation, I put it to you as follows - there should be no representation without taxation. Those who are not net payers into the treasury and take out more than they earn should not be entitled to representation and should be immediately disenfranchised.
(Copyright Alan B'Stard MP, 1989).
Thats the end of the pensioner vote and Faragists. A permanent New Labour/LD/Cameron type government.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
The Americans demanded no taxation without representation, I put it to you as follows - there should be no representation without taxation. Those who are not net payers into the treasury and take out more than they earn should not be entitled to representation and should be immediately disenfranchised.
(Copyright Alan B'Stard MP, 1989).
Does that mean anyone having a major (and costly) operation is permanetly disenfrachised?
What job, if any, does Badenoch offer Jenrick in her Shadow Cabinet? Or vice-versa? And would the loser take it?
Offer Northern Ireland and it's too obvious.
Shadow Home Secretary.
One of the great offices of state, but shut out of economic policy.
Put him in charge of the Rwanda policy.
And give him a one-way ticket...
To be boringly serious for a moment, Bobby kicked off this round of voting insisting to be Conservative Candidate at the next election will need to sign up to coming out of the ECHR. If Kemi distances herself from withdrawal from ECHR in order to make the Conservatives seem electable, could Jenrick even sit in her Shadow Cabinet?
He's reinvented himself from Cameroon remainer to his current outlook so I would not be surprised.
But his whole campaign has been built on ECHR withdrawal as his “silver bullet” to regaining voters back to the Conservatives, tbh it could at least put the fox amongst the Reform hens. HY has just posted Kemi is against ECHR withdrawal. I think HY is wrong, she’s merely said it should not be a defining policy issue. If she was against it, there is no way Jenrick could immediately join her ShadCab by junking his whole platform quite that quickly!
Could Kemi quietly morph Rwanda policy into just off shore processing asylum claims, lob off the “forced to stay in Rwanda if successful” part of it. That was the part of it which grounded the planes, by British courts far more than any ECHR involvement. By May 3rd 2029, Labour likely will be offshore processing themselves. Will the Tories fight that election with Full Fat Rwanda?
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Being at least partly tongue in cheek, I always liked the suggestion of my brother in law.
He holds that the ballot paper should have the names, photographs, party and 1 headline party policy of each candidate. But they should be all mixed up. For your vote to count you have to be able to link the name, photo, party and policy of your chosen candidate on the ballot paper. Anything else is a spoiled ballot.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
Being at least partly tongue in cheek, I always liked the suggestion of my brother in law.
He holds that the ballot paper should have the names, photographs, party and 1 headline party policy of each candidate. But they should be all mixed up. For your vote to count you have to be able to link the name, photo, party and policy of your chosen candidate on the ballot paper. Anything else is a spoiled ballot.
I actually read all the manifestos and I'm not confident I'd pass such a test.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
The Americans demanded no taxation without representation, I put it to you as follows - there should be no representation without taxation. Those who are not net payers into the treasury and take out more than they earn should not be entitled to representation and should be immediately disenfranchised.
(Copyright Alan B'Stard MP, 1989).
Does that mean anyone having a major (and costly) operation is permanetly disenfrachised?
“You see, in the good old days, you were poor, you got ill and you died. And yet these days people seem to think they’ve got some sort of God-given right to be cured. And what is the result of this sloppy socialist thinking? More poor people”.
More black holes than there are pot holes in the roads....
The numbers always looked shifty. I did a detailed calculation on here earlier this year that put VAT on private schools as revenue neutral _at best_ based on assumptions on elasticity of demand derived from the 2008 era financial crisis. The 1.7bn a year she expects to raise raised eyebrows. And made me assume all her other projections were vastly over-optimistic as behaviour changes and growth falls.
This is genuinely a disastrous, back to the 1970s tax and spend budget that hammers the private sector while giving to the public sector with no real expectation of improvements in efficiency.
Labour don't know how to grow the economy. Or even make tough choices. All they know is tax 'n' spend, tax 'n' spend.
I was personally planning to dump over £1m of capital gains next year, expecting to pay circa £300k in tax. I now plan to hold the vast majority of my existing assets for the next five years and sell only a small amount for comfort, it's that or move abroad. Either way I will be paying less tax next year than I planned to six months ago.
Tax rises change behaviour. Basing predicted income on optimistic assessments of limited behavioural change will end in tears.
As you say, Rachel will be back with more, higher tax demands next year.
There's been a lot of comment along the lines that Labour don't know how to grow the economy.
But as I mentioned yesterday, Labour had, and possibly still have, a well' worked plan for growing the economy, honed for three years and supported by many economists.
This plan was in large part dropped or postponed, because the Tories were weaponising it into a populist line of attack on taxes and spending.
So, if we are now left with no immediate or obvious guidemap to Growth, the Tory Party and tory press would be well-advised to reflect on their share of the responsibility for that.
Do you have a link to that? I was unaware of it, would be fascinated to read it. As a right wing/Austrian economics meanie I dare say I'd disagree with it, but Labour sort of feel like Season 4 Battlestar Galactica Cylons right now, i.e. there is no plan.
The centrepiece of the plan was / is to build a national network of "gigafactories" for EV technology.
Alarm bells reporting from @MHackman for those who care about the future of our country: Trump's advisors are preparing massive cuts to *LEGAL* immigration as soon as he enters office. Everything from families and refugees to skilled workers is threatened. Economic insanity! https://x.com/David_J_Bier/status/1852043135850803505
Yesterday's Budget is a total irrelevance compared to the economic tsunami that will hit us and the rest of the world if Trump wins on Tuesday.
They can theoretically win without it, but it would require most others to go exactly right, and why would they?
Yes. No Penn and Harris will need an unexpectedly good election in the Sun Belt. Penn is the Rust State she’s not seen any decent poll leads in recent weeks, not even from sound pollsters.
I’ll stay up for it on PB. But as soon as Penn is called for Trump, I’m off to bed.
They can theoretically win without it, but it would require most others to go exactly right, and why would they?
Yes. No Penn and Harris will need an unexpectedly good election in the Sun Belt. Penn is the Rust State she’s not seen any decent poll leads in recent weeks, not even from sound pollsters.
This is your regular reminder that Dr Oz was leading Fetterman on the eve of polling in 2022, and ended up losing by five percentage points.
They can theoretically win without it, but it would require most others to go exactly right, and why would they?
Yes. No Penn and Harris will need an unexpectedly good election in the Sun Belt. Penn is the Rust State she’s not seen any decent poll leads in recent weeks, not even from sound pollsters.
This is your regular reminder that Dr Oz was leading Fetterman on the eve of polling in 2022, and ended up losing by five percentage points.
No real Trumper, he, why has he not spent 2 years moaning about it like Kari Lake?
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
No but it certainly led to movements like the Chartists and suffragettes marching and protesting and occasionally even turning violent to get the vote for working class people and women. Otherwise if you go back to a franchise where only middle class male property owners vote inevitably only their concerns will largely be focused on
Chartists didn't turn violent. It was the Tories who did.
So I think of the card carrying pb blue lovelies, @Casino_Royale@TSE@MaxPB and yours truly have voted for Kemi while @HYUFD and @Mortimer backed Jenrick. And @MarqueeMark 'abstained'. Have I missed anyone?
The result will be announced at 11.00 am on Saturday.
Indeed, for my part I voted for Boris in 2019, Rishi last time and Jenrick this time.
If Kemi does win it will be only the second time the more moderate of the final 2 won the Tory leadership election with members.
The other was when Cameron beat Davis in 2005 (though before he won the backing of Francois and the ERG and jumped on the anti immigration bandwagon Jenrick had been a Cameroon) so it is a close call which of them is more centrist. Kemi opposing Jenrick's support for pulling out of the ECHR though and winning the backing of Osborne, Green, Hague and Gove makes her the more centrist of the two now
She didn't 'win the support' of those people, she is their candidate.
Cleverly was their candidate, with Green for Tugendhat.
Just for them Badenoch is now more moderate than Jenrick who in their view is too close to Reform
They can theoretically win without it, but it would require most others to go exactly right, and why would they?
Yes. No Penn and Harris will need an unexpectedly good election in the Sun Belt. Penn is the Rust State she’s not seen any decent poll leads in recent weeks, not even from sound pollsters.
I’ll stay up for it on PB. But as soon as Penn is called for Trump, I’m off to bed.
Alarm bells reporting from @MHackman for those who care about the future of our country: Trump's advisors are preparing massive cuts to *LEGAL* immigration as soon as he enters office. Everything from families and refugees to skilled workers is threatened. Economic insanity! https://x.com/David_J_Bier/status/1852043135850803505
Yesterday's Budget is a total irrelevance compared to the economic tsunami that will hit us and the rest of the world if Trump wins on Tuesday.
Yes, I've been making the point for a while that we're in a really poor state to cope with another large shock to the world economy.
They can theoretically win without it, but it would require most others to go exactly right, and why would they?
Yes. No Penn and Harris will need an unexpectedly good election in the Sun Belt. Penn is the Rust State she’s not seen any decent poll leads in recent weeks, not even from sound pollsters.
I’ll stay up for it on PB. But as soon as Penn is called for Trump, I’m off to bed.
They can theoretically win without it, but it would require most others to go exactly right, and why would they?
Yes. No Penn and Harris will need an unexpectedly good election in the Sun Belt. Penn is the Rust State she’s not seen any decent poll leads in recent weeks, not even from sound pollsters.
This is your regular reminder that Dr Oz was leading Fetterman on the eve of polling in 2022, and ended up losing by five percentage points.
True but rather more white working class men will get off the sofa to vote for Trump than for Dr Oz, though more white graduate women will put down the chardonnay to vote for Harris to keep Trump out too
The latest update to @williamglenn is the most bizarre yet
He hasn't gone all Eurofederalist on us again has he?
Not yet, but he is seemingly suggesting passing some form of exam in order to vote.
That's Reform and Johnsonian Tories bolloxed. Has William gone all wibbly-wobbly left wing?
Remains to be seen. One watches, and one waits, with bated breath. It likely looks very different tomorrow. There is, according to ancient lore, a William for all seasons.
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
There is a difference between earned privileges and innate human rights.
Also, driving tests are enforced for safety reasons.
It's about as stupid as saying: "we don't let people drive cars without wearing seatbelts, isn't it madness to let people vote without wearing seatbelts?"
"Delinquent elites are in an open crusade against democracy"
Discuss
The way the Lisbon Treaty was handled would be a good example...
I was thinking more of things like Peter Thiel writing "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
Perhaps he should go and live in North Korea and see what the alternative is like?
Funnily enough though he still lives in America, a country which, with all its faults, is still mostly free AND reasonably democratic.
Is universal suffrage essential for freedom and democracy? Do we look back on the time of Gladstone and Disraeli as an era of tyranny because the vote was restricted?
How about South Africa?
A restricted franchise is a long way from Apartheid.
So you would be OK restricting the franchise on racial lines?
Why are you talking about race? We restrict the franchise based on age today. Maybe if you also had an educational requirement, for example, it would provide an additional incentive for people to pass their exams, and it would also raise the standard of political discouse because politicians would know they had to appeal to the more discerning section of the population.
We have universal adult sufferage of citizens.
You asked whether it was necessary for good government.
Presumably you are planning on restricting based on some factor: sex, education, wealth, race, etc?
Personally, my view is that yes it is needed for good government. Because otherwise you are literally creating second class citizens of one group or another.
Do you agree with denying the vote to long-term residents?
I agree with the universal adult suffrage of citizens.
I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view. (Especially as - if you are a long-term resident of the UK - then there are plenty of paths to citizenship.)
It’s not universal because we famously deny it to prisoners.
If there were an education requirement then there would also be plenty of paths to qualifying. It could be something as simple as a civics exam, analogous to the test people have to pass to become citizens.
We also famously deny prisoners other rights normal citizens have, like the right to leave the prison.
So what’s the argument against having to pass a simple civics test to get on the electoral roll. We don’t let people drive cars without passing a test. Isn’t it madness to take less care over who can decide the fate of the nation?
There is a difference between earned privileges and innate human rights.
Also, driving tests are enforced for safety reasons.
It's about as stupid as saying: "we don't let people drive cars without wearing seatbelts, isn't it madness to let people vote without wearing seatbelts?"
To be fair, that's where driving licences are sometimes treated like an innate human right, particularly when old people are involved or someone has "exceptional hardship" from the loss of it.
Jenrick is very low in the betting for someone who's probably going to get at least 40% and possibly 45%.
He was on the telly today and presented as just an obnoxious individual. Regardless of what you think of his politics, the idea that this odious creep could be on our tellies regularly for the next few years is likely putting people off. Kemi is a weak candidate: incompetent, cowardly and weird. But she is at least capable of being personable.
More black holes than there are pot holes in the roads....
Well you can lay that directly at the Tories’ door. They have left the books in a complete mess, seemingly. Embarrassing.
That’s just Labour spin, the £22bn figure has already been debunked.
Both major parties were not straight with us in the Election. The choice was either tax rises or austerity and strikes. The existing tax and spend plans guaranteed one or other or both.
The point of the IFS statement is that Labour are still not being honest after the election, now that they are in government. I criticised Hunt for his fantasy budgets before the election and I'm not going to be shy about criticising Reeves for her fantasy budget after the election.
Having the fuel duty rise still in the budget plan for future years, after cancelling it in this budget (for the 14th year in a row now?) is a pure fantasy. Either go ahead with the fuel duty increase, or make cancelling it permanent, and be honest about where the money is going to come to pay for it.
Putting completely unrealistic budget restraint for government departments for future years of the budget, while talking about rebuilding the country, is a fantasy. It is not credible. It insults my intelligence to put those numbers in there, so that the fiscal rules can be met without further tax rises in future years.
This is not responsible planning of the public finances. This is an empty exercise of chicanery and untruths.
Jenrick is very low in the betting for someone who's probably going to get at least 40% and possibly 45%.
He was on the telly today and presented as just an obnoxious individual. Regardless of what you think of his politics, the idea that this odious creep could be on our tellies regularly for the next few years is likely putting people off. Kemi is a weak candidate: incompetent, cowardly and weird. But she is at least capable of being personable.
I'm pretty sure Kemi will win but it'll probably something like 55% to 45% in my opinion.
Jenrick is very low in the betting for someone who's probably going to get at least 40% and possibly 45%.
He was on the telly today and presented as just an obnoxious individual. Regardless of what you think of his politics, the idea that this odious creep could be on our tellies regularly for the next few years is likely putting people off. Kemi is a weak candidate: incompetent, cowardly and weird. But she is at least capable of being personable.
Jenrick is very low in the betting for someone who's probably going to get at least 40% and possibly 45%.
He was on the telly today and presented as just an obnoxious individual. Regardless of what you think of his politics, the idea that this odious creep could be on our tellies regularly for the next few years is likely putting people off. Kemi is a weak candidate: incompetent, cowardly and weird. But she is at least capable of being personable.
I'm pretty sure Kemi will win but it'll probably something like 55% to 45% in my opinion.
Yes, you are probably about right IMO. We’ll see on Saturday.
Jap 0.94 Ger 2.40 Fra 3.12 Can 3.24 Ita 3.64 USA 4.29 UK 4.43
Britain is still sleepwalking in the belief that everything is, or should be normal. It's not long ago that the UK had borrowing costs in the middle- to top end of G7 rates and a AAA rating (for what those are worth). Both parties of government have an interest in not discussing the debt burden though, and no-one else (or no-one credible) seems bothered about talking about it either. Too difficult; leave it for another day. Which is fine other than that strategy means the 'other day' will end up being at someone else's choosing.
All those countries, except Germany, have higher debt burdens than we do, so that chart, in isolation, doesn't prove the point you think it does - in fact, if anything, it argues the opposite.
Our problem is not that debt is too high, it's that we've given up on growth, prioritising a notably useless public sector (see the last three months), surreal and stupid planning regulations, endless lockdowns during the pandemic and so on instead. None of these problems are peculiar to us - France and Italy have larger public sectors, Japan's planning regulations are as bad, etc, but our combination does seem to be particularly pernicious. If we can get the economy growing again, the debt problem will solve itself, assuming we avoid the Cameronite "sharing the proceeds of growth" idiocy.
Possibly relevant: After the 2004 election -- as I recall -- a Bush insider said that Pennsylvania always broke their hearts. They always thought they had a chance there, but lost in both 2000 and 2004.
Will the same happen this year? Beats me.
(Interestingly, in a poll in 2016, John Kasich did way better than the Loser in a hypothetical general election match up.)
On the budget, despite all the criticism on here (some, though not all, merited) I think we'll find that most voters are pretty happy with, or at least sanguine about, it. Why? Well, because their taxes haven't gone up, fuel duty hasn't gone up, and there's money being pumped into the NHS. And the tax rises don't directly affect the vast majority of the population. Sticking my neck out, I'd expect a slight uptick in the government's popularity over the next few weeks.
More black holes than there are pot holes in the roads....
The numbers always looked shifty. I did a detailed calculation on here earlier this year that put VAT on private schools as revenue neutral _at best_ based on assumptions on elasticity of demand derived from the 2008 era financial crisis. The 1.7bn a year she expects to raise raised eyebrows. And made me assume all her other projections were vastly over-optimistic as behaviour changes and growth falls.
This is genuinely a disastrous, back to the 1970s tax and spend budget that hammers the private sector while giving to the public sector with no real expectation of improvements in efficiency.
Labour don't know how to grow the economy. Or even make tough choices. All they know is tax 'n' spend, tax 'n' spend.
I was personally planning to dump over £1m of capital gains next year, expecting to pay circa £300k in tax. I now plan to hold the vast majority of my existing assets for the next five years and sell only a small amount for comfort, it's that or move abroad. Either way I will be paying less tax next year than I planned to six months ago.
Tax rises change behaviour. Basing predicted income on optimistic assessments of limited behavioural change will end in tears.
As you say, Rachel will be back with more, higher tax demands next year.
There's been a lot of comment along the lines that Labour don't know how to grow the economy.
But as I mentioned yesterday, Labour had, and possibly still have, a well' worked plan for growing the economy, honed for three years and supported by many economists.
This plan was in large part dropped or postponed, because the Tories were weaponising it into a populist line of attack on taxes and spending.
So, if we are now left with no immediate or obvious guidemap to Growth, the Tory Party and tory press would be well-advised to reflect on their share of the responsibility for that.
I'm in favour of a green growth plan, but if we take a look at the two big ticket items that Miliband is still pushing - carbon capture and storage, and green hydrogen - it doesn't inspire confidence that the plan in its entirety was going to be great. Presumably the two bits he's saved are the ones he had most confidence in, and there are many things the money would be better spent on (tidal in particular, also EV charging, various storage technologies, some sodding battery factories, etc) and also the whole approach could be much better (backing a range of technologies and letting reality sort out which is the best).
I was disappointed when the green growth plan was canned, but on the evidence before me, it would seem as though the country was saved quite a large amount of wasted money as a result. While I'm sure there's a good green growth plan out there for Britain, I don't think Labour ever had it.
Jenrick is very low in the betting for someone who's probably going to get at least 40% and possibly 45%.
He was on the telly today and presented as just an obnoxious individual. Regardless of what you think of his politics, the idea that this odious creep could be on our tellies regularly for the next few years is likely putting people off. Kemi is a weak candidate: incompetent, cowardly and weird. But she is at least capable of being personable.
What evidence do you have that Kemi is:
1. Cowardly 2. Incompetent 3. Weird
?
Well weird is a personable opinion, the other two are evidenced by her time as a minister. She achieved sweet FA and disappeared whenever the going got tough. In fact, she was largely invisible except when pounding her fists on some trivial culture war nonsense which was sod all to do with her department.
Reflecting on this budget after a day, I'm inclined to think it was quite a bit more cautious than expected.
She took care to spike potential Tory guns and potential political objections, which was perhaps Rishi sounded a bit like an Edward Lear character, at quite considerable cost (eg Excise Duty), and on several things (eg IHT) only broke ground rather than dealing with the area thoroughly.
It was very political, but they seem to my eye to be addressing things systematically if more slowly than I would like.
I have not listened to very much yet, but the Defence increases seem sensible - money to go on mainly rebuilding stock sent to Ukraine and forces' pay.
To me another £9bn sounds far too small for what is needed further. OTOH she can get nearly all of that from restoring fuel excise duty even a small part of the journey back to where it was in real terms.
Jap 0.94 Ger 2.40 Fra 3.12 Can 3.24 Ita 3.64 USA 4.29 UK 4.43
Britain is still sleepwalking in the belief that everything is, or should be normal. It's not long ago that the UK had borrowing costs in the middle- to top end of G7 rates and a AAA rating (for what those are worth). Both parties of government have an interest in not discussing the debt burden though, and no-one else (or no-one credible) seems bothered about talking about it either. Too difficult; leave it for another day. Which is fine other than that strategy means the 'other day' will end up being at someone else's choosing.
All those countries, except Germany, have higher debt burdens than we do, so that chart, in isolation, doesn't prove the point you think it does - in fact, if anything, it argues the opposite.
Our problem is not that debt is too high, it's that we've given up on growth, prioritising a notably useless public sector (see the last three months), surreal and stupid planning regulations, endless lockdowns during the pandemic and so on instead. None of these problems are peculiar to us - France and Italy have larger public sectors, Japan's planning regulations are as bad, etc, but our combination does seem to be particularly pernicious. If we can get the economy growing again, the debt problem will solve itself, assuming we avoid the Cameronite "sharing the proceeds of growth" idiocy.
It's mostly just short end rates expectations. Even in the recent sell off it was a bear flattening, not an explosion in term premium.
Possibly relevant: After the 2004 election -- as I recall -- a Bush insider said that Pennsylvania always broke their hearts. They always thought they had a chance there, but lost in both 2000 and 2004.
Will the same happen this year? Beats me.
(Interestingly, in a poll in 2016, John Kasich did way better than the Loser in a hypothetical general election match up.)
Of course in 2004 Kerry won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan even while losing the national popular vote to Bush and Harris doesn't need Ohio or Florida either as he did. So some encouragement for her there as the former 3 states plus Ne02 where she is clearly ahead in Walz's state of birth give her an EC win
Jenrick is very low in the betting for someone who's probably going to get at least 40% and possibly 45%.
He was on the telly today and presented as just an obnoxious individual. Regardless of what you think of his politics, the idea that this odious creep could be on our tellies regularly for the next few years is likely putting people off. Kemi is a weak candidate: incompetent, cowardly and weird. But she is at least capable of being personable.
I'm pretty sure Kemi will win but it'll probably something like 55% to 45% in my opinion.
Yes, you are probably about right IMO. We’ll see on Saturday.
There is a smidgeon of merit in the idea that the right to vote should depend on a certain level of intelligence, or passing a civics test. Trump would be denied the vote.
Jenrick is very low in the betting for someone who's probably going to get at least 40% and possibly 45%.
He was on the telly today and presented as just an obnoxious individual. Regardless of what you think of his politics, the idea that this odious creep could be on our tellies regularly for the next few years is likely putting people off. Kemi is a weak candidate: incompetent, cowardly and weird. But she is at least capable of being personable.
What evidence do you have that Kemi is:
1. Cowardly 2. Incompetent 3. Weird
?
Well weird is a personable opinion, the other two are evidenced by her time as a minister. She achieved sweet FA and disappeared whenever the going got tough. In fact, she was largely invisible except when pounding her fists on some trivial culture war nonsense which was sod all to do with her department.
Comments
I believe that she did pass a load of sensible EU laws into UK law
Let's just go Starship Troopers on this.
Some obvious ones:
Explain the difference between the Conference of Berlin and the Congress of Berlin.
Evaluate the significance of Timothy Hackworth.
To what extent was Northumberland justified in putting Jane on the throne?
The most important battle in English history was not Hastings but Brunanburh. Discuss.
To what extent is loose fiscal policy to blame for the current situation of Scotland?
To take these two examples, we assume everyone has the right to vote unless we remove it in extreme circumstances (prison); whereas we assume you have no right to drive until you can prove you are safe to do so.
Different starting points. Some things are rights, and some things are privileges.
*though isn't nessecary to be POTUS.
In fact that such positive things are not innate to our nature makes it more impressive and praiseworthy that we develop and inculcate them. That's why its great that democracy, though rare historically, is seen as inherently the right thing to the point even most tyrannical regimes at least pretend to be democratic.
It scares me that some regimes might stop even with the pretence.
It is slightly disturbing nobody picked up on that parody...
Marquette poll has Dem enthusiasm in Wisconsin at 78 Republican enthusiasm at 68.
https://x.com/JudLounsbury/status/1851991957683204260
But as I mentioned yesterday, Labour had, and possibly still have, a well' worked plan for growing the economy, honed for three years and supported by many economists.
This plan was in large part dropped
or postponed, because the Tories were weaponising it into a populist line of attack on taxes and spending.
So, if we are now left with no immediate or obvious guidemap to Growth, the Tory Party and tory press would be well-advised to reflect on their share of the responsibility for that.
(Copyright Alan B'Stard MP, 1989).
He holds that the ballot paper should have the names, photographs, party and 1 headline party policy of each candidate. But they should be all mixed up. For your vote to count you have to be able to link the name, photo, party and policy of your chosen candidate on the ballot paper. Anything else is a spoiled ballot.
https://x.com/David_J_Bier/status/1852043135850803505
But instead of being replaced by a genuinely conservative opposition, they've been replaced by an opposition whose position on all those things is that we need more of them. It's a disaster. We needed a Millei; we got a Milliband.
Even for the left wing it's not good - you needed to come in doing a bit of leftism after public services had been starved a bit and the private sector had thrived so there was money to chuck at them. This is a disaster for left wingery - this detestable Labour Government of none of the talents is going to see your lot out of power for at least 14 more years if you're lucky.
Could Kemi quietly morph Rwanda policy into just off shore processing asylum claims, lob off the “forced to stay in Rwanda if successful” part of it. That was the part of it which grounded the planes, by British courts far more than any ECHR involvement. By May 3rd 2029, Labour likely will be offshore processing themselves. Will the Tories fight that election with Full Fat Rwanda?
https://x.com/_jxnesyy/status/1111780091477016583
https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/labour-s-green-prosperity-plan-what-s-changed/
I’ll stay up for it on PB. But as soon as Penn is called for Trump, I’m off to bed.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/10/31/king-praises-orthodox-church-not-political-correctness/
Just for them Badenoch is now more moderate than Jenrick who in their view is too close to Reform
@atrupar
·
6h
Tim Walz: "This dude is nearly 80 years old. He damn near killed himself getting in a garbage truck."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1852017841253360125
These days, though, he's best chums with Patriarch Bartholomeos of Constantinople, a decidedly left-of-centre chap who's an environmentalist.
There already is an exam - the test is "follow the instructions on the ballot paper".
"Trump talks and talks and talks, I can't emphasise this enough. there is no chance of anyone getting a word in edgeways"
"Elon Musk will find his attempt to be King of the World ends in tears" (in context of Trump will use him and then spit him out)
It's about as stupid as saying: "we don't let people drive cars without wearing seatbelts, isn't it madness to let people vote without wearing seatbelts?"
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1851793126496546933
Having the fuel duty rise still in the budget plan for future years, after cancelling it in this budget (for the 14th year in a row now?) is a pure fantasy. Either go ahead with the fuel duty increase, or make cancelling it permanent, and be honest about where the money is going to come to pay for it.
Putting completely unrealistic budget restraint for government departments for future years of the budget, while talking about rebuilding the country, is a fantasy. It is not credible. It insults my intelligence to put those numbers in there, so that the fiscal rules can be met without further tax rises in future years.
This is not responsible planning of the public finances. This is an empty exercise of chicanery and untruths.
1. Cowardly
2. Incompetent
3. Weird
?
Our problem is not that debt is too high, it's that we've given up on growth, prioritising a notably useless public sector (see the last three months), surreal and stupid planning regulations, endless lockdowns during the pandemic and so on instead. None of these problems are peculiar to us - France and Italy have larger public sectors, Japan's planning regulations are as bad, etc, but our combination does seem to be particularly pernicious. If we can get the economy growing again, the debt problem will solve itself, assuming we avoid the Cameronite "sharing the proceeds of growth" idiocy.
Will the same happen this year? Beats me.
(Interestingly, in a poll in 2016, John Kasich did way better than the Loser in a hypothetical general election match up.)
Sticking my neck out, I'd expect a slight uptick in the government's popularity over the next few weeks.
I was disappointed when the green growth plan was canned, but on the evidence before me, it would seem as though the country was saved quite a large amount of wasted money as a result. While I'm sure there's a good green growth plan out there for Britain, I don't think Labour ever had it.
She took care to spike potential Tory guns and potential political objections, which was perhaps Rishi sounded a bit like an Edward Lear character, at quite considerable cost (eg Excise Duty), and on several things (eg IHT) only broke ground rather than dealing with the area thoroughly.
It was very political, but they seem to my eye to be addressing things systematically if more slowly than I would like.
I have not listened to very much yet, but the Defence increases seem sensible - money to go on mainly rebuilding stock sent to Ukraine and forces' pay.
To me another £9bn sounds far too small for what is needed further. OTOH she can get nearly all of that from restoring fuel excise duty even a small part of the journey back to where it was in real terms.
According to text messages from the Harris-Walz campaign, the vice president will hold a Get Out The Vote concert at Point State Park on Monday from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. She'll hold a similar rally in Philadelphia from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/harris-pittsburgh-concert-rally-monday/
Trump would be denied the vote.