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.
Yes, I think that’s right. Spoke to a business owner in the catering sector who was seriously pissed off with the NICs and particularly the lowering of the threshold. But, he added that he thought it would broadly be popular - with his staff and the public at large - and that Reeves seemed a smart operator. It was an interesting conversation.
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.
Sounds like you can't really substantiate any of those claims?
"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.
We've made good progress recently on giving many more prisoners the right to leave prison earlier than expected
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.
Yes, I think that’s right. Spoke to a business owner in the catering sector who was seriously pissed off with the NICs and particularly the lowering of the threshold. But, he added that he thought it would broadly be popular - with his staff and the public at large - and that Reeves seemed a smart operator. It was an interesting conversation.
We’ll see.
Yes - in catering, I imagine his staff will be pleased at the rise in the minimum/living wage.
"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.
That one is likely to be in the frame to be tightened up on I think, since there was a consultation on poor eyesight wrt driving licenses by the Conservative Government which made a costed case for somewhat tighter regs.
But the missing piece of the jigsaw is to facilitate safe alternatives to motor vehicles for short journeys.
The gaping hole is the Exceptional Hardship loophole for totting-up miscreants. Currently a dependent child or parent is an excuse for getting away with breaking the law, whilst it should be a reason not to break it at all. The terms of trade must change.
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.
Sounds like you can't really substantiate any of those claims?
What did she achieve as minister? You’ve got all night. I look forward to reviewing your list in the morning GIN!
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.
Yes, I think that’s right. Spoke to a business owner in the catering sector who was seriously pissed off with the NICs and particularly the lowering of the threshold. But, he added that he thought it would broadly be popular - with his staff and the public at large - and that Reeves seemed a smart operator. It was an interesting conversation.
We’ll see.
Yes - in catering, I imagine his staff will be pleased at the rise in the minimum/living wage.
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.
Yes, I think that’s right. Spoke to a business owner in the catering sector who was seriously pissed off with the NICs and particularly the lowering of the threshold. But, he added that he thought it would broadly be popular - with his staff and the public at large - and that Reeves seemed a smart operator. It was an interesting conversation.
We’ll see.
Yes - in catering, I imagine his staff will be pleased at the rise in the minimum/living wage.
Indeed, I should say that he was relatively sanguine about the NMW hike (although he pointed out that if the pot washer was on £12 then his barmaids/waitresses would quickly demand £14-£15 because they were front of house and considered themselves more valuable to the business). It was the threshold reduction that he was angry about: partly, but not entirely, because it was a shock.
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.
I'm not sure that the decisions were made by Miliband on which parts are still in motion.
The centrepiece of the plan, and where most of the funds were/are allocated to, as far as I understand it, is a national network of both research and development, and manufacturing facilities, for EV technology development. Genuine German-style industrial growth policy, which I think they may have no choice but to tevisit at some stage.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
The simplest way forward is also the least palatable.
Income tax up by 2p in the pound, coupled with swingeing cuts to the welfare state.
Pay down debt, offer tax breaks to entrepreneurs and encourage the knowledge economy, offer tax breaks to billionaires and non dom types to move here rather than move away. Better to get a small amount of something than a lot of nothing, as Reeves seems to have chosen.
Grasp the nettle of the housing crisis with policies that screw over nimbies and build, build, build. Social care reform. End the triple lock, means tested support for pensioners who need it, the rest need to accept being a bit poorer, like the rest of us, as the economy resets.
Everything I have mentioned is electorally toxic, of course. But it's the only way forward.
No, there are plenty of other ways forward.
For example, install *inside the various government department* units tasked with IT renewal, process reduction, data science etc. Give them massive political support and set them to work.
It can be done - see the private sector.
The problem is the public sector exhibits a largely self-selecting bias towards slowness and inefficiency. The type of person who wants to increase efficiency in the ways you describe rarely gravitates towards the public sector. So how to encourage them, because they generally meet with the immovable monolith of existing culture within the public sector which becomes a force field of resistance to change.
Privatising vast swathes of the public sector is an option, but, again, electorally toxic...
Offer the right pay and motivation. If you like reforming organisations, large chunks of the public sector are pristine territory….
Honestly - I love work like that. Shades of Dom Cummings putting out that APB to attract weirdoes and assorted non-conformists to work with him back in 2019. My kind of gig.
I applied. I didn't get an invite to an interview.
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.
I'm not sure that the decisions were made by Miliband on which parts are still in motion.
The centrepiece of the plan, and where most of the funds were/are allocated to, as far as I understand it, is a national network of both research and development, and manufacturing facilities, for EV technology development. Genuine German-style industrial growth policy, which I think they may have no choice but to tevisit at some stage.
That sounds quite promising, but they would need to start on it now.
You're right that it's a bit unfair to lay the blamer directly at Miliband. It may have been Reeves or Starmer's decision.
Jenrick is very low in the betting for someone who's probably going to get at least 40% and possibly 45%.
Yup. I remain overweight Jenrick for this reason, although green on both.
Will be overjoyed when Kemi wins though.
Although even more overjoyed by Jenrick's loss. And unlike @HYUFD I disagree she'd have to keep him the shadow cabinet, and if she has any sense hopefully won't. Tent pissing out with scumbag worms like that doesn't work, see Braverman / Patel for example. Better to just isolate them.
"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?
No it isn't. Seriously. The point of an election is to ensure that the Government has the consent of the people and the losers concede defeat for a term.
The vote is not a benefit to be granted, it is a right that cannot be removed without due process. The Government does not select the voters, the voters select the government.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
The simplest way forward is also the least palatable.
Income tax up by 2p in the pound, coupled with swingeing cuts to the welfare state.
Pay down debt, offer tax breaks to entrepreneurs and encourage the knowledge economy, offer tax breaks to billionaires and non dom types to move here rather than move away. Better to get a small amount of something than a lot of nothing, as Reeves seems to have chosen.
Grasp the nettle of the housing crisis with policies that screw over nimbies and build, build, build. Social care reform. End the triple lock, means tested support for pensioners who need it, the rest need to accept being a bit poorer, like the rest of us, as the economy resets.
Everything I have mentioned is electorally toxic, of course. But it's the only way forward.
No, there are plenty of other ways forward.
For example, install *inside the various government department* units tasked with IT renewal, process reduction, data science etc. Give them massive political support and set them to work.
It can be done - see the private sector.
The problem is the public sector exhibits a largely self-selecting bias towards slowness and inefficiency. The type of person who wants to increase efficiency in the ways you describe rarely gravitates towards the public sector. So how to encourage them, because they generally meet with the immovable monolith of existing culture within the public sector which becomes a force field of resistance to change.
Privatising vast swathes of the public sector is an option, but, again, electorally toxic...
Offer the right pay and motivation. If you like reforming organisations, large chunks of the public sector are pristine territory….
Honestly - I love work like that. Shades of Dom Cummings putting out that APB to attract weirdoes and assorted non-conformists to work with him back in 2019. My kind of gig.
I applied. I didn't get an invite to an interview.
If I ever make it to a PB meetup I can say a lot on this subject, but can't really hint at how any more than this message, which is a bit of a tease, sorry
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
The simplest way forward is also the least palatable.
Income tax up by 2p in the pound, coupled with swingeing cuts to the welfare state.
Pay down debt, offer tax breaks to entrepreneurs and encourage the knowledge economy, offer tax breaks to billionaires and non dom types to move here rather than move away. Better to get a small amount of something than a lot of nothing, as Reeves seems to have chosen.
Grasp the nettle of the housing crisis with policies that screw over nimbies and build, build, build. Social care reform. End the triple lock, means tested support for pensioners who need it, the rest need to accept being a bit poorer, like the rest of us, as the economy resets.
Everything I have mentioned is electorally toxic, of course. But it's the only way forward.
No, there are plenty of other ways forward.
For example, install *inside the various government department* units tasked with IT renewal, process reduction, data science etc. Give them massive political support and set them to work.
It can be done - see the private sector.
The problem is the public sector exhibits a largely self-selecting bias towards slowness and inefficiency. The type of person who wants to increase efficiency in the ways you describe rarely gravitates towards the public sector. So how to encourage them, because they generally meet with the immovable monolith of existing culture within the public sector which becomes a force field of resistance to change.
Privatising vast swathes of the public sector is an option, but, again, electorally toxic...
Offer the right pay and motivation. If you like reforming organisations, large chunks of the public sector are pristine territory….
Honestly - I love work like that. Shades of Dom Cummings putting out that APB to attract weirdoes and assorted non-conformists to work with him back in 2019. My kind of gig.
I applied. I didn't get an invite to an interview.
Every councillor in the constituency is now a Lib Dem.
Apparently there are checkpoint on all roads going into the constituency. If you are a councillor, you are required to undergo an act of conversion before you are even allowed in.
Random bizarre fact: apparently in 2011 China banned the Backstreet Boys' wholly innocuous 1999 song "I Want It That Way". Whether it's still banned today, I don't know.
"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?
No it isn't. Seriously. The point of an election is to ensure that the Government has the consent of the people and the losers concede defeat for a term.
The vote is not a benefit to be granted, it is a right that cannot be removed without due process. The Government does not select the voters, the voters select the government.
This is why I think prisoners should have the vote.
"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?
No it isn't. Seriously. The point of an election is to ensure that the Government has the consent of the people and the losers concede defeat for a term.
The vote is not a benefit to be granted, it is a right that cannot be removed without due process. The Government does not select the voters, the voters select the government.
This is why I think prisoners should have the vote.
Not sure why governments have been so implacably against this: it's plainly arguable.
Angela Rayner declares another £3500 in clothes from Lord Alli, previously declared as "Office support".
I can't even conceive of spending that much on clothes, or having it spent for me.
Could be I'm a slob who only wears attire made by Bangladeshi children, but I prefer to think it's a sign of still being a regular person, which elites gifted that much are not any longer, even when from humble origins
"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?
No it isn't. Seriously. The point of an election is to ensure that the Government has the consent of the people and the losers concede defeat for a term.
The vote is not a benefit to be granted, it is a right that cannot be removed without due process. The Government does not select the voters, the voters select the government.
This is why I think prisoners should have the vote.
Not sure why governments have been so implacably against this: it's plainly arguable.
Giving the worst type of prisoner the vote (think mass murderers) is political suicide.
Drawing the line as to what prisoners can and cannot have the vote is too difficult.
So giving it to none is the easiest option.
I don't agree with the restriction on principle, but at 0.2% of adult population it's hardly gerrymandering. Let's not conflate it with anti-democratic attempts to limit the franchise to the right sort of voters.
"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?
No it isn't. Seriously. The point of an election is to ensure that the Government has the consent of the people and the losers concede defeat for a term.
The vote is not a benefit to be granted, it is a right that cannot be removed without due process. The Government does not select the voters, the voters select the government.
This is why I think prisoners should have the vote.
Not sure why governments have been so implacably against this: it's plainly arguable.
It's arguable, sure, though I'd argue they should not. There is a due process before (temporary) removal.
It seems so neck and neck I'm surprised the chances are not literally put at closer to 50/50. Seeing mostly Dem friendly the general vibe is not complacent, despite boosting positive spin of course.
Jenrick is very low in the betting for someone who's probably going to get at least 40% and possibly 45%.
Yup. I remain overweight Jenrick for this reason, although green on both.
Will be overjoyed when Kemi wins though.
Although even more overjoyed by Jenrick's loss. And unlike @HYUFD I disagree she'd have to keep him the shadow cabinet, and if she has any sense hopefully won't. Tent pissing out with scumbag worms like that doesn't work, see Braverman / Patel for example. Better to just isolate them.
Thanks for that sage advice for a party you have absolutely no intention of voting for.
London Weekend Television take Hampstead. Thames take Canary Wharf. Yorkshire Television take York Central. Tyne Tees take Sunderland North. S4C take Aberystwyth. Well at least the map is easy to draw.
"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?
No it isn't. Seriously. The point of an election is to ensure that the Government has the consent of the people and the losers concede defeat for a term.
The vote is not a benefit to be granted, it is a right that cannot be removed without due process. The Government does not select the voters, the voters select the government.
This is why I think prisoners should have the vote.
Not sure why governments have been so implacably against this: it's plainly arguable.
Giving the worst type of prisoner the vote (think mass murderers) is political suicide.
Drawing the line as to what prisoners can and cannot have the vote is too difficult.
So giving it to none is the easiest option.
I don't agree with the restriction on principle, but at 0.2% of adult population it's hardly gerrymandering. Let's not conflate it with anti-democratic attempts to limit the franchise to the right sort of voters.
Going the other way - I don’t see the reason that some chose it as a hill to die on from the other side.
Society takes away many rights from the imprisoned. On of the aspects of imprisonment is about withdrawing the right to participate in society for a period.
Angela Rayner declares another £3500 in clothes from Lord Alli, previously declared as "Office support".
Oh goodie, #Frockgate is back.
Who cares?
Move on.
I think even you can see that claiming personal clothes as 'office support' is incorrect. And it seems to have been done time and time again. Improperly declaring stuff like this should be taken seriously, whether the person doing it is a Tory or Labour.
There are only two reasons why these things would have been improperly declared: incompetence or evasion. And I find it hard to believe anyone can seriously call new clothes 'office support'.
I'm honestly starting to wonder what a senior Labour figure would have to do before you criticise them.
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.
I don't want Trump to win. He'll be bad for the USA, Europe, Ukraine, and the world. But I felt the same in 2016, and he wasn't quite as bad as I feared - until Jan 6th, that is. If he wins, we will all just have to adjust to having someone as deeply flawed as Trump 2 in the White House - someone filled with petty grievances and hatred. It will not be pleasant, but I hope that he isn't as bad as he could be.
Most of all, we will have to build relationships with friends other than the unreliable USA. Europe, say...
Despite a wobble last week I have a sense that there may be some surprised observers after next Tuesday. As with France and, to a lesser extent the UK, this Presidential election may cause a big surprise with the Far Right flattering to deceive.
I still think Kamala Harris will win relatively comfortably: c. 320 to 220
Anyway I embark today on a lengthy round-the-world trip so you can laugh in my absence at my nonsense … IF I’m wrong
xx
p.s. I don’t think this is merely because it’s the result I want. Many of my most profitable punts have been on right of centre outcomes, including Brexit.
Despite a wobble last week I have a sense that there may be some surprised observers after next Tuesday. As with France and, to a lesser extent the UK, this Presidential election may cause a big surprise with the Far Right flattering to deceive.
I still think Kamala Harris will win relatively comfortably: c. 320 to 220
Anyway I embark today on a lengthy round-the-world trip so you can laugh in my absence at my nonsense … IF I’m wrong
xx
p.s. I don’t think this is merely because it’s the result I want. Many of my most profitable punts have been on right of centre outcomes, including Brexit.
Angela Rayner declares another £3500 in clothes from Lord Alli, previously declared as "Office support".
Oh goodie, #Frockgate is back.
Who cares?
Move on.
I think even you can see that claiming personal clothes as 'office support' is incorrect. And it seems to have been done time and time again. Improperly declaring stuff like this should be taken seriously, whether the person doing it is a Tory or Labour.
There are only two reasons why these things would have been improperly declared: incompetence or evasion. And I find it hard to believe anyone can seriously call new clothes 'office support'.
I'm honestly starting to wonder what a senior Labour figure would have to do before you criticise them.
LOL quite literally the gift that keeps on giving. They can’t even dress themselves!
Angela Rayner declares another £3500 in clothes from Lord Alli, previously declared as "Office support".
I can't even conceive of spending that much on clothes, or having it spent for me.
Could be I'm a slob who only wears attire made by Bangladeshi children, but I prefer to think it's a sign of still being a regular person, which elites gifted that much are not any longer, even when from humble origins
Likewise.
I'd rather like to have a bespoke suit, which these days could easily cost that much. But not at the price of foregoing everything else of rather more pressing importance that I can buy with that money.
The powerful meet quite a lot with the rich, for whom such things are not an even a choice. Perhaps it makes them feel inadequate ?
Angela Rayner declares another £3500 in clothes from Lord Alli, previously declared as "Office support".
I can't even conceive of spending that much on clothes, or having it spent for me.
Could be I'm a slob who only wears attire made by Bangladeshi children, but I prefer to think it's a sign of still being a regular person, which elites gifted that much are not any longer, even when from humble origins
Likewise.
I'd rather like to have a bespoke suit, which these days could easily cost that much. But not at the price of foregoing everything else of rather more pressing importance that I can buy with that money.
The powerful meet quite a lot with the rich, for whom such things are not an even a choice. Perhaps it makes them feel inadequate ?
One might understand that outfits for events is a little trickier for the ladies, but as with Mrs Starmer there would be a queue of British designers wanting to lend her dresses in exchange for a shout out in the press release. Otherwise go to Next and M&S like the rest of the middle classes.
Angela Rayner declares another £3500 in clothes from Lord Alli, previously declared as "Office support".
I can't even conceive of spending that much on clothes, or having it spent for me.
Could be I'm a slob who only wears attire made by Bangladeshi children, but I prefer to think it's a sign of still being a regular person, which elites gifted that much are not any longer, even when from humble origins
Likewise.
I'd rather like to have a bespoke suit, which these days could easily cost that much. But not at the price of foregoing everything else of rather more pressing importance that I can buy with that money.
The powerful meet quite a lot with the rich, for whom such things are not an even a choice. Perhaps it makes them feel inadequate ?
If you wear something that looks a bit meh, do you end up on the front page of the papers with half the country calling you a scruff? That may be the difference in mindset, just perhaps.
Angela Rayner declares another £3500 in clothes from Lord Alli, previously declared as "Office support".
I can't even conceive of spending that much on clothes, or having it spent for me.
Could be I'm a slob who only wears attire made by Bangladeshi children, but I prefer to think it's a sign of still being a regular person, which elites gifted that much are not any longer, even when from humble origins
Likewise.
I'd rather like to have a bespoke suit, which these days could easily cost that much. But not at the price of foregoing everything else of rather more pressing importance that I can buy with that money.
The powerful meet quite a lot with the rich, for whom such things are not an even a choice. Perhaps it makes them feel inadequate ?
If you wear something that looks a bit meh, do you end up on the front page of the papers with half the country calling you a scruff? That may be the difference in mindset, just perhaps.
Which, if true, says a lot about some folk's priorities
Despite a wobble last week I have a sense that there may be some surprised observers after next Tuesday. As with France and, to a lesser extent the UK, this Presidential election may cause a big surprise with the Far Right flattering to deceive.
I still think Kamala Harris will win relatively comfortably: c. 320 to 220
Anyway I embark today on a lengthy round-the-world trip so you can laugh in my absence at my nonsense … IF I’m wrong
xx
p.s. I don’t think this is merely because it’s the result I want. Many of my most profitable punts have been on right of centre outcomes, including Brexit.
Just for once, I hope you're right, although if Harris wins, I don't think it will be comfortable (in terms of vote share, at any rate).
Looks like the Harris team are going to miss out on this opportunity, unless she turns up in Austin today. Rogan’s been quite clear that the door is open to her any time.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
Perhaps, but we don't judge ourselves by our worst historical moments, even modern historial moments. We judge by our neighbours, what we feel we deserve, and how things generally feel in our guts.
I'm an optimist in global terms, life for the majority is better than most other points of history, but for the UK everything just seems kind of low grade crappy. Does anything work properly, or get done swiftly anymore? Surely yes, but a lot does not.
The thing is, my impression of our neighbours is that they feel the same way. Everything's shit if you listen to the French and the Germans.
The vast majority of stuff works. We turn on a tap; we get water. Our 'leccy and gas works. Our Internet works Even the NHS 'works' the majority of the time.
We do not think of the times when things just work. But we complain and remember when things fail: and because of modern communications, we hear about when they fail for other people.
I think we are seeing the long term effects of both Social Media induced envy, and of Russian trolls all over the Internet and Social Media.
It's these trolls mission to trash talk and run down every comment board in every country, from both left and right. They know that their own country is shit, and want their people to believe every other country is shit too. That's the basic message of Russia Today. The pretence is that everywhere is shit, but at least Russia is honest about it.
I think that gives too much power to social media trolling and divests people of agency. People's eyes and ears won't get fooled forever if it contradicts what they read.
It's why governments may not get punished by things like a brief technical recession, if the general person doesn't feel it to be very bad.
I've been vaguely watching the (I assume) Russian trolls over the past few years. It's been interesting watching their MO. Often appear as a regular person in a small-but-influential group. Contribute, chat, seem normal-ish. Then a little bit of fret about how their country is on the wrong track. Eventually posting outright Kremlin TV and things like "I just want my country back!". The groups are usually adjacent culturally. A primarily US-focussed group will get an English troll who can throw in some vaguely plausible local colour, etc.
Bit of sympathy, leading eventually to outrage as their 'friend' talks about how gay/muslims/leftists/whatever mean they are now locked in their home, terrorised, unable to speak their mind for fear of being arrested. (Yes, the irony).
That all sounds suspiciously like someone we know….
Angela Rayner declares another £3500 in clothes from Lord Alli, previously declared as "Office support".
I can't even conceive of spending that much on clothes, or having it spent for me.
Could be I'm a slob who only wears attire made by Bangladeshi children, but I prefer to think it's a sign of still being a regular person, which elites gifted that much are not any longer, even when from humble origins
Likewise.
I'd rather like to have a bespoke suit, which these days could easily cost that much. But not at the price of foregoing everything else of rather more pressing importance that I can buy with that money.
The powerful meet quite a lot with the rich, for whom such things are not an even a choice. Perhaps it makes them feel inadequate ?
If you wear something that looks a bit meh, do you end up on the front page of the papers with half the country calling you a scruff? That may be the difference in mindset, just perhaps.
Which, if true, says a lot about some folk's priorities
John Major’s peak popularity was when he appeared in Iraq wearing khaki casuals from M&S.
But, of course, women are treated differently (unfairly) when it comes to clothes.
Despite a wobble last week I have a sense that there may be some surprised observers after next Tuesday. As with France and, to a lesser extent the UK, this Presidential election may cause a big surprise with the Far Right flattering to deceive.
I still think Kamala Harris will win relatively comfortably: c. 320 to 220
Anyway I embark today on a lengthy round-the-world trip so you can laugh in my absence at my nonsense … IF I’m wrong
xx
p.s. I don’t think this is merely because it’s the result I want. Many of my most profitable punts have been on right of centre outcomes, including Brexit.
Just for once, I hope you're right, although if Harris wins, I don't think it will be comfortable (in terms of vote share, at any rate).
Well, we're just a few days from knowing.
For what it's worth, for the first time this election, I am putting my money where my mouth is, and putting a little bit of cash on Harris. I think it is 50/50, or maybe even a little in Harris's favour, and I'm getting close to 2:1. That seems like a bargain to me.
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.
I don't disagree, but the Tory plans are equally a tissue of nonsense.
Pretending we can accurately predict GDP growth, revenues and borrowing several years in the future is just nonsense. Everyone of those figures will be wrong, and we don't know in which direction.
It's useful to have some long term stability in some policies so no mention of changes to allowances or taxation for pensions and ISAs was good news, but for other things like tax rates and thresholds a general sense of direction is all that is needed.
"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?
No it isn't. Seriously. The point of an election is to ensure that the Government has the consent of the people and the losers concede defeat for a term.
The vote is not a benefit to be granted, it is a right that cannot be removed without due process. The Government does not select the voters, the voters select the government.
This is why I think prisoners should have the vote.
Not sure why governments have been so implacably against this: it's plainly arguable.
Giving the worst type of prisoner the vote (think mass murderers) is political suicide.
Drawing the line as to what prisoners can and cannot have the vote is too difficult.
So giving it to none is the easiest option.
I don't agree with the restriction on principle, but at 0.2% of adult population it's hardly gerrymandering. Let's not conflate it with anti-democratic attempts to limit the franchise to the right sort of voters.
Going the other way - I don’t see the reason that some chose it as a hill to die on from the other side.
Society takes away many rights from the imprisoned. On of the aspects of imprisonment is about withdrawing the right to participate in society for a period.
I think it's one of those situations where some people apply the slippery slope argument particularly strongly. Any restriction on the franchise opens the door to further restrictions on the franchise, and consequently their vote is threatened.
Given that most of us on here (as relatively more wealthy, educated, male and white) are people who would have had the vote for most if not all of the 19th century, while most of the rest of the country would not have done so, I can appreciate why that argument would feel more convincing to other people than it does to me, or the rest of PB.
Universal suffrage is a relatively new idea in its implementation. We're 96 years from the 1928 Act that gave women the vote in the UK on an equal basis to men. So 100 years from the last GE contested without universal suffrage. So the last British woman denied the vote on an equal basis as men would have died in the last decade or so.
Despite a wobble last week I have a sense that there may be some surprised observers after next Tuesday. As with France and, to a lesser extent the UK, this Presidential election may cause a big surprise with the Far Right flattering to deceive.
I still think Kamala Harris will win relatively comfortably: c. 320 to 220
Anyway I embark today on a lengthy round-the-world trip so you can laugh in my absence at my nonsense … IF I’m wrong
xx
p.s. I don’t think this is merely because it’s the result I want. Many of my most profitable punts have been on right of centre outcomes, including Brexit.
I'm on the @rcs1000 bandwagon. I think it's almost certain that people will be surprised by the margin of victory. I just don't know whether that victory will be Trump's or Harris's.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
Perhaps, but we don't judge ourselves by our worst historical moments, even modern historial moments. We judge by our neighbours, what we feel we deserve, and how things generally feel in our guts.
I'm an optimist in global terms, life for the majority is better than most other points of history, but for the UK everything just seems kind of low grade crappy. Does anything work properly, or get done swiftly anymore? Surely yes, but a lot does not.
The thing is, my impression of our neighbours is that they feel the same way. Everything's shit if you listen to the French and the Germans.
The vast majority of stuff works. We turn on a tap; we get water. Our 'leccy and gas works. Our Internet works Even the NHS 'works' the majority of the time.
We do not think of the times when things just work. But we complain and remember when things fail: and because of modern communications, we hear about when they fail for other people.
I think we are seeing the long term effects of both Social Media induced envy, and of Russian trolls all over the Internet and Social Media.
It's these trolls mission to trash talk and run down every comment board in every country, from both left and right. They know that their own country is shit, and want their people to believe every other country is shit too. That's the basic message of Russia Today. The pretence is that everywhere is shit, but at least Russia is honest about it.
I think that gives too much power to social media trolling and divests people of agency. People's eyes and ears won't get fooled forever if it contradicts what they read.
It's why governments may not get punished by things like a brief technical recession, if the general person doesn't feel it to be very bad.
I've been vaguely watching the (I assume) Russian trolls over the past few years. It's been interesting watching their MO. Often appear as a regular person in a small-but-influential group. Contribute, chat, seem normal-ish. Then a little bit of fret about how their country is on the wrong track. Eventually posting outright Kremlin TV and things like "I just want my country back!". The groups are usually adjacent culturally. A primarily US-focussed group will get an English troll who can throw in some vaguely plausible local colour, etc.
Bit of sympathy, leading eventually to outrage as their 'friend' talks about how gay/muslims/leftists/whatever mean they are now locked in their home, terrorised, unable to speak their mind for fear of being arrested. (Yes, the irony).
That all sounds suspiciously like someone we know….
The premise is wrong. The country is NOT in a mess, nor is France, Australia, New Zealand, the US or Germany. Russia IS in a mess.
I did not vote for the present government. I will not vote Labour at the next election either. I believe we are better off with a strong Right of Centre government and I will vote Conservative at the next election. I would vote tactically for a Reform candidate if necessary. If a comfortable number of people agree with me we will have a right of centre government.
The same can happen in every country I list, except Russia, so Russia is in a mess.
So called PR is a distraction and certainly in Australia and New Zealand it is hampering changes of government. There is a danger that it would embed the centre here in the UK as well. Would I prefer a LD government to the present one - well no I want neither. The charges of the Uniparty are a modern form of Butskillism and disengage from politics. I would rather have a Reform Government that an unmoveable LD one.
But the truth is, albeit some of the individuals were complete arseholes the previous government was pretty effective and a Good Thing. The present government in my opinion, is not a Good Thing.
The majority view here on the significance of Pennsylvania is that (A) whoever wins PA will win the White House. There is also a view that (B) the Betfair POTUS market is undervaluing Harris and overvaluing Trump.
Latest prices PA
Democrats 2.14-2.18 Republicans 1.84-1.87
Latest prices POTUS
Trump 1.64-1.65 Harris 2.58-2.6
If (A) is true then the PA prices should be the same as the POTUS prices - making (B) true.
The majority view here on the significance of Pennsylvania is that (A) whoever wins PA will win the White House. There is also a view that (B) the Betfair POTUS market is undervaluing Harris and overvaluing Trump.
Latest prices PA
Democrats 2.14-2.18 Republicans 1.84-1.87
Latest prices POTUS
Trump 1.64-1.65 Harris 2.58-2.6
If A) is true then the PA prices should be the same as the POTUS prices - making true.
Don't you just hate the way Vanilla autocorrects to emojis like that?
Despite a wobble last week I have a sense that there may be some surprised observers after next Tuesday. As with France and, to a lesser extent the UK, this Presidential election may cause a big surprise with the Far Right flattering to deceive.
I still think Kamala Harris will win relatively comfortably: c. 320 to 220
Anyway I embark today on a lengthy round-the-world trip so you can laugh in my absence at my nonsense … IF I’m wrong
xx
p.s. I don’t think this is merely because it’s the result I want. Many of my most profitable punts have been on right of centre outcomes, including Brexit.
I'm on the @rcs1000 bandwagon. I think it's almost certain that people will be surprised by the margin of victory. I just don't know whether that victory will be Trump's or Harris's.
Equally judging from latest polls, I think it’s highly plausible that Kamala takes Wisconsin, Michegan and Pa. And trump N carolina, Nv, Az and Georgia. And we finish 270-268 in her favour
Even if it takes them two months to settle, that’s still better than keeping your cash in the bank. How many other very safe states are offering 1/50 or 1/33 odds I wonder?
"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?
No it isn't. Seriously. The point of an election is to ensure that the Government has the consent of the people and the losers concede defeat for a term.
The vote is not a benefit to be granted, it is a right that cannot be removed without due process. The Government does not select the voters, the voters select the government.
This is why I think prisoners should have the vote.
Not sure why governments have been so implacably against this: it's plainly arguable.
Giving the worst type of prisoner the vote (think mass murderers) is political suicide.
Drawing the line as to what prisoners can and cannot have the vote is too difficult.
So giving it to none is the easiest option.
I don't agree with the restriction on principle, but at 0.2% of adult population it's hardly gerrymandering. Let's not conflate it with anti-democratic attempts to limit the franchise to the right sort of voters.
Going the other way - I don’t see the reason that some chose it as a hill to die on from the other side.
Society takes away many rights from the imprisoned. On of the aspects of imprisonment is about withdrawing the right to participate in society for a period.
The US has over three million prisoners, and the proportion of the population incarcerated rises above 10% for younger black men. And it’s an industry, producing almost all military and first responder uniforms, most numberplates, and even about 25% of US office furniture, all for ‘wages’ of a few cents an hour..
Looks like the Harris team are going to miss out on this opportunity, unless she turns up in Austin today. Rogan’s been quite clear that the door is open to her any time.
Harris is not going to do it; the messaging can't be managed. It is too high risk.
The interview (with Vance) is well worth watching. I listened to an hour yesterday (it is over 3 hours long). It is a very interesting discussion where he seems to just explain his personal views on a lot of contentious issues, which seems to align with the message of the Trump campaign, but would never in any other electoral context be possible. IE you could create an unlimited amount of 'evidence' demonstrating that he is 'transphobic' from the discussion, if that was your agenda; but it won't matter because the Trump campaign seems to defy all known political 'rules'. He comes across as being very assured of his views - his style is very much to invite you to agree with him, rather than reaching out to his opponents, again something that goes against all political norms.
The essential appeal of Trump, Vance and their supporters like Musk is that the country is in a mess, they are competent and smart, and they will sort it out. Against this you have a clown show which is what the 'establishment' has descended to, in the form of the democrats. The victory of the former, if it happens, will be largely due to the failings and failures of the latter.
Ive noticed in the last two weeks or so people Im talking to go off on one when talking about the public sector. Usually comments on Im getting whacked with tax while that lot with their big pensions and salaries arent doing anything to earn it.
We could be seeing a new dividing line in politics
Even if it takes them two months to settle, that’s still better than keeping your cash in the bank. How many other very safe states are offering 1/50 or 1/33 odds I wonder?
The problem is that the "them" in this case might well be tech bros willing to take Trump's word for it that he rightfully won California.
If they settle the market for Trump, despite the certified vote going to Harris by millions, what recourse would you have? Much less than with the bank.
The majority view here on the significance of Pennsylvania is that (A) whoever wins PA will win the White House. There is also a view that (B) the Betfair POTUS market is undervaluing Harris and overvaluing Trump.
Latest prices PA
Democrats 2.14-2.18 Republicans 1.84-1.87
Latest prices POTUS
Trump 1.64-1.65 Harris 2.58-2.6
If (A) is true then the PA prices should be the same as the POTUS prices - making (B) true.
On that reasoning you could back Harris to win presidency and hedge it by backing Trump to win PA.
I guess the problem is: IF North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada have slipped out of reach for Harris, then Trump only needs one of Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin. Not hard to imagine her holding on in PA but losing Michigan or Wisconsin.
Despite a wobble last week I have a sense that there may be some surprised observers after next Tuesday. As with France and, to a lesser extent the UK, this Presidential election may cause a big surprise with the Far Right flattering to deceive.
I still think Kamala Harris will win relatively comfortably: c. 320 to 220
Anyway I embark today on a lengthy round-the-world trip so you can laugh in my absence at my nonsense … IF I’m wrong
xx
p.s. I don’t think this is merely because it’s the result I want. Many of my most profitable punts have been on right of centre outcomes, including Brexit.
There are so many states within the margin of error it seems very likely to me that they will all fall the same way. If that is the case then the EC result could easily be as distorted as the GE result was here. FWIW I think Harris will take NC as well as PA, MI, WI. I am slightly less confident about AZ and GA but I think she will get NV as well.
Or they could all tip the other way. It just needs either candidate to outperform the polls by 2-3%. One of them is going to do that.
Looks like the Harris team are going to miss out on this opportunity, unless she turns up in Austin today. Rogan’s been quite clear that the door is open to her any time.
Harris is not going to do it; the messaging can't be managed. It is too high risk.
The interview (with Vance) is well worth watching. I listened to an hour yesterday (it is over 3 hours long). It is a very interesting discussion where he seems to just explain his personal views on a lot of contentious issues, which seems to align with the message of the Trump campaign, but would never in any other electoral context be possible. IE you could create an unlimited amount of 'evidence' demonstrating that he is 'transphobic' from the discussion, if that was your agenda; but it won't matter because the Trump campaign seems to defy all known political 'rules'. He comes across as being very assured of his views - his style is very much to invite you to agree with him, rather than reaching out to his opponents, again something that goes against all political norms.
The essential appeal of Trump, Vance and their supporters like Musk is that the country is in a mess, they are competent and smart, and they will sort it out. Against this you have a clown show which is what the 'establishment' has descended to, in the form of the democrats. The victory of the former, if it happens, will be largely due to the failings and failures of the latter.
I’ve seen a few clips, will watch the whole thing later. Having seen his podcast last week with Theo Von, I actually like Vance even though I don’t particularly like Trump. Anyone talking about ‘transphopia’ is already voting Harris. As discussed in the context of the Trump podcast last week, Rogan’s audience skews male, young, and rural, is going to be more Republican than Democrat. Perhaps these two conversations will help get demogaphics that traditionally don’t vote, to the polls on Tuesday.
I agree that the Harris campaign don’t want to risk it, they’ve been very controlled about the interviews that have done. They offered Rogan the opportunity to come to them and do an hour, which he declined. He’s not a political interviewer, he just wants to talk to people.
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.
Women's rights are not trivial. The Supreme Court is hearing an important case on this very issue later this month. And she was Minister for Women and Equalities so it was very much part of her job.
Shame on you for dismissing women's issues - like so many on this forum.
Comments
We’ll see.
Poppy vs. Community Notes
🧵 An updated thread.
1. How it all started...
https://x.com/CNviolations/status/1852002645629960480
But the missing piece of the jigsaw is to facilitate safe alternatives to motor vehicles for short journeys.
The gaping hole is the Exceptional Hardship loophole for totting-up miscreants. Currently a dependent child or parent is an excuse for getting away with breaking the law, whilst it should be a reason not to break it at all. The terms of trade must change.
sanguine about the NMW hike (although he pointed out that if the pot washer was on £12 then his barmaids/waitresses would quickly demand £14-£15 because they were front of house and considered themselves more valuable to the business). It was the threshold reduction that he was angry about: partly, but not entirely, because it was a shock.
Angela Rayner declares another £3500 in clothes from Lord Alli, previously declared as "Office support".
But the hundreds of thousands of seriously pissed Ricans might win the day.
So much for any matter being closed.
Who cares?
Move on.
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
#Latest
@NateSilver538
Forecast:
Chance of winning:
Trump 55% (+11)
Harris 44%
.
Electoral votes:
Trump 270
Harris 268
https://natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-
The centrepiece of the plan, and where most of the funds were/are allocated to, as far as I understand it, is a national network of both research and development, and manufacturing facilities, for EV technology development. Genuine German-style industrial growth policy, which I think they may have no choice but to tevisit at some stage.
You're right that it's a bit unfair to lay the blamer directly at Miliband. It may have been Reeves or Starmer's decision.
Will be overjoyed when Kemi wins though.
Although even more overjoyed by Jenrick's loss. And unlike @HYUFD I disagree she'd have to keep him the shadow cabinet, and if she has any sense hopefully won't. Tent pissing out with scumbag worms like that doesn't work, see Braverman / Patel for example. Better to just isolate them.
The vote is not a benefit to be granted, it is a right that cannot be removed without due process. The Government does not select the voters, the voters select the government.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/23/lady-gaga-katy-perry-china
Could be I'm a slob who only wears attire made by Bangladeshi children, but I prefer to think it's a sign of still being a regular person, which elites gifted that much are not any longer, even when from humble origins
Drawing the line as to what prisoners can and cannot have the vote is too difficult.
So giving it to none is the easiest option.
I don't agree with the restriction on principle, but at 0.2% of adult population it's hardly gerrymandering. Let's not conflate it with anti-democratic attempts to limit the franchise to the right sort of voters.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8g42o6
Society takes away many rights from the imprisoned. On of the aspects of imprisonment is about withdrawing the right to participate in society for a period.
It’s also not extended into post prison condition - see America, where “former felon” can block voting for life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States
There are only two reasons why these things would have been improperly declared: incompetence or evasion. And I find it hard to believe anyone can seriously call new clothes 'office support'.
I'm honestly starting to wonder what a senior Labour figure would have to do before you criticise them.
Most of all, we will have to build relationships with friends other than the unreliable USA. Europe, say...
If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for Kamala Harris"
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/10/31/a-second-trump-term-comes-with-unacceptable-risks
Despite a wobble last week I have a sense that there may be some surprised observers after next Tuesday. As with France and, to a lesser extent the UK, this Presidential election may cause a big surprise with the Far Right flattering to deceive.
I still think Kamala Harris will win relatively comfortably: c. 320 to 220
Anyway I embark today on a lengthy round-the-world trip so you can laugh in my absence at my nonsense … IF I’m wrong
xx
p.s. I don’t think this is merely because it’s the result I want. Many of my most profitable punts have been on right of centre outcomes, including Brexit.
Hope you’re well
Enjoy your trip.
I'd rather like to have a bespoke suit, which these days could easily cost that much. But not at the price of foregoing everything else of rather more pressing importance that I can buy with that money.
The powerful meet quite a lot with the rich, for whom such things are not an even a choice.
Perhaps it makes them feel inadequate ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRyyTAs1XY8
Looks like the Harris team are going to miss out on this opportunity, unless she turns up in Austin today. Rogan’s been quite clear that the door is open to her any time.
But, of course, women are treated differently (unfairly) when it comes to clothes.
For what it's worth, for the first time this election, I am putting my money where my mouth is, and putting a little bit of cash on Harris. I think it is 50/50, or maybe even a little in Harris's favour, and I'm getting close to 2:1. That seems like a bargain to me.
Pretending we can accurately predict GDP growth, revenues and borrowing several years in the future is just nonsense. Everyone of those figures will be wrong, and we don't know in which direction.
It's useful to have some long term stability in some policies so no mention of changes to allowances or taxation for pensions and ISAs was good news, but for other things like tax rates and thresholds a general sense of direction is all that is needed.
Given that most of us on here (as relatively more wealthy, educated, male and white) are people who would have had the vote for most if not all of the 19th century, while most of the rest of the country would not have done so, I can appreciate why that argument would feel more convincing to other people than it does to me, or the rest of PB.
Universal suffrage is a relatively new idea in its implementation. We're 96 years from the 1928 Act that gave women the vote in the UK on an equal basis to men. So 100 years from the last GE contested without universal suffrage. So the last British woman denied the vote on an equal basis as men would have died in the last decade or so.
There may be safer ways to earn 2% in four days than betting on Harris in California, but I'm not sure I can think of any.
I did not vote for the present government. I will not vote Labour at the next election either. I believe we are better off with a strong Right of Centre government and I will vote Conservative at the next election. I would vote tactically for a Reform candidate if necessary. If a comfortable number of people agree with me we will have a right of centre government.
The same can happen in every country I list, except Russia, so Russia is in a mess.
So called PR is a distraction and certainly in Australia and New Zealand it is hampering changes of government. There is a danger that it would embed the centre here in the UK as well. Would I prefer a LD government to the present one - well no I want neither. The charges of the Uniparty are a modern form of Butskillism and disengage from politics. I would rather have a Reform Government that an unmoveable LD one.
But the truth is, albeit some of the individuals were complete arseholes the previous government was pretty effective and a Good Thing. The present government in my opinion, is not a Good Thing.
Latest prices PA
Democrats 2.14-2.18
Republicans 1.84-1.87
Latest prices POTUS
Trump 1.64-1.65
Harris 2.58-2.6
If (A) is true then the PA prices should be the same as the POTUS prices - making (B) true.
NEW THREAD
The interview (with Vance) is well worth watching. I listened to an hour yesterday (it is over 3 hours long). It is a very interesting discussion where he seems to just explain his personal views on a lot of contentious issues, which seems to align with the message of the Trump campaign, but would never in any other electoral context be possible. IE you could create an unlimited amount of 'evidence' demonstrating that he is 'transphobic' from the discussion, if that was your agenda; but it won't matter because the Trump campaign seems to defy all known political 'rules'. He comes across as being very assured of his views - his style is very much to invite you to agree with him, rather than reaching out to his opponents, again something that goes against all political norms.
The essential appeal of Trump, Vance and their supporters like Musk is that the country is in a mess, they are competent and smart, and they will sort it out. Against this you have a clown show which is what the 'establishment' has descended to, in the form of the democrats. The victory of the former, if it happens, will be largely due to the failings and failures of the latter.
https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2024/1031/1478487-dublin-halloween-parade/
Hundreds of people gathered along O'Connell Street in Dublin city centre this evening for a hoax Halloween parade.
We could be seeing a new dividing line in politics
If they settle the market for Trump, despite the certified vote going to Harris by millions, what recourse would you have? Much less than with the bank.
I guess the problem is:
IF North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada have slipped out of reach for Harris, then Trump only needs one of Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin. Not hard to imagine her holding on in PA but losing Michigan or Wisconsin.
Or they could all tip the other way. It just needs either candidate to outperform the polls by 2-3%. One of them is going to do that.
Good morning everyone.
I agree that the Harris campaign don’t want to risk it, they’ve been very controlled about the interviews that have done. They offered Rogan the opportunity to come to them and do an hour, which he declined. He’s not a political interviewer, he just wants to talk to people.
I thought their ballot security was pretty good...
Shame on you for dismissing women's issues - like so many on this forum.