Is gerrymandering still gerrymandering if the move to benefit one party is to redress current advantages to the other, resulting in a more equal system? The question is more abstract now the Tory vote ended up, I believe, even more efficient than Labour, and depends on what the new 'fix' would be and how far it would swing the pendulum the other way, but I do feel that moving advantage in one direction is not in of itself unfair, if there was unfairness already existing.
The definition of gerrymandering is that it introduces an unfair advantage to the party making the change.
It's use by Labour during the last parliament was disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. The fact an independent body makes the changes without party interference pours cold water on all their claims.
As I was probably the most negative person on PB about the LibDems electoral chances this year, I feel I need to spread some cheer :-)
Here's the thing, I think there are roughly 15% of the people who:
- have strong views on civil liberties (snoopers charter, etc.) - are broadly egalitarian in outlook, but who have no love for the unions - are internationalist in outlook - tend to believe in climate change, but don't obsess about it
Because the coalition "toxified" the LibDems, it meant some of those people voted Green in 2015, some Conservative, and some Labour. They are potentially "winnable" back for the LibDems in the medium term.
Wow - LIAMT's comments about the possible replacement of Wednesbury unreasonableness in the previous thread are an eye opener and no mistake. Obviously the legal definition of reasonableness is, I've exoerienced, to many people funnily enough unreasonable in its extremity, but the alternative proposed seems cause for worry.
If you want a good example of several angels being made to dance on a pinhead, have a look at paragraph [14] of Lord Sumption JSC's judgment in Hayes v Willoughby[2013] 1 WLR 935, where he distinguishes in some detail between "objective reasonableness", "rationality", and "Wednesbury unreasonableness". His distinctions are so fine that at paragraph [28] the dissenting justice, Lord Reed states that he does not expect a jury could understand them, and confesses he doesn't either!
At least I'm in good company then - honestly, if you make distinctions that fine, what's the point?
I am not convinced that Parliament can have intended that a jury should be expected to understand and apply the sophisticated distinctions which Lord Sumption seeks to draw.
I am not an ardent reader of legal judgements, but that feels like an unsubtle slam to Lord Sumption. 'Sophisticated' as a euphemism for nonsensical or something. I almost hope the pair are like competing academics who for years publish subtle takedowns of the others' position across countless articles and books . But probably it's all very professional in the disagreement.
Because the coalition "toxified" the LibDems, it meant some of those people voted Green in 2015, some Conservative, and some Labour. They are potentially "winnable" back for the LibDems in the medium term.
There's an alternative scenario, though: the Greens might go a bit sane, and thus effectively replace the LibDems. Who knows? It's a bit early to say how the patterns in the kaleidoscope will fall - a lot will depend on what direction Labour take.
Because the coalition "toxified" the LibDems, it meant some of those people voted Green in 2015, some Conservative, and some Labour. They are potentially "winnable" back for the LibDems in the medium term.
There's an alternative scenario, though: the Greens might go a bit sane
Anything's possible I guess. Fair play to them if they manage that.
Because the coalition "toxified" the LibDems, it meant some of those people voted Green in 2015, some Conservative, and some Labour. They are potentially "winnable" back for the LibDems in the medium term.
There's an alternative scenario, though: the Greens might go a bit sane, and thus effectively replace the LibDems. Who knows? It's a bit early to say how the patterns in the kaleidoscope will fall - a lot will depend on what direction Labour take.
I doubt that, they have a hard core of support who would be regarded as 'fringe' in a normal party. That their leadership is part of that fringe does not bode well for moderation.
I think 'wacky' policies are their USP, to be honest.
PB Update – welcome to Don Brind Tomorrow the political journalist, Don Brind, is joining our small team of regular guest slot contributors. He is somebody I’ve known a very long time since we both worked at the BBC in the 1970s. In recent times Don has been a regular contributor on The Week
Back in 2007 Don gave me a well argued steer on the then LAB deputy leadership contest to the effect that Harriet Harman, then 10/1, was going to get it. She won.
He’s got very close contacts with LAB and will act as a balance to David Herdson and TSE who are both active Tories. His first column will be tomorrow.
@iainmartin1: Beyond parody" "Miliband is said to have emphasised that his party lost due to the failure of millions of notional supporters to turn out."
... because they considered him to be an unelectable moron, who would have been a truly terrible PM.
A party doesn't go through this kind of meltdown and just "come back". Especially worrying for the Lib-Dem's is how their local base has been all but destroyed over the past five years.
First they have got to restore their Councillors and Councils, then they can start thinking about regaining some MP's, but we're talking years in terms of the former and a decade or two in terms of the later, IMO.
I would expect 2020 to lift them back into the teen's in terms of MP's if they are lucky, so they will, literally, regain a "few" seats.
I think 5 or so gains, to take the LibDems to 13 seats, would be a good result in 2015.
I agree. But what do you think would be a plausible bad result? What range do you see for them?
I could see any possible outcome from about 5-15 MPs currently, assuming boundary reforms don't dramatically change the picture.
Is gerrymandering still gerrymandering if the move to benefit one party is to redress current advantages to the other, resulting in a more equal system? The question is more abstract now the Tory vote ended up, I believe, even more efficient than Labour, and depends on what the new 'fix' would be and how far it would swing the pendulum the other way, but I do feel that moving advantage in one direction is not in of itself unfair, if there was unfairness already existing.
The definition of gerrymandering is that it introduces an unfair advantage to the party making the change.
It's use by Labour during the last parliament was disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. The fact an independent body makes the changes without party interference pours cold water on all their claims.
Needless to say, moves that create an unfair system are often described as making the system more fair.
Miliband has something of a point. If general election turnout was for example at the level of the Scottish referendum turnout (with very high turnout among the very poor and the young), we could've seen Labour get most votes this time.
Whether it's at all realistic to ever expect that turnout in a general election is another question though, and especially whether it's realistic to rely on it happening by 2020.
Is gerrymandering still gerrymandering if the move to benefit one party is to redress current advantages to the other, resulting in a more equal system? The question is more abstract now the Tory vote ended up, I believe, even more efficient than Labour, and depends on what the new 'fix' would be and how far it would swing the pendulum the other way, but I do feel that moving advantage in one direction is not in of itself unfair, if there was unfairness already existing.
The definition of gerrymandering is that it introduces an unfair advantage to the party making the change.
It's use by Labour during the last parliament was disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. The fact an independent body makes the changes without party interference pours cold water on all their claims.
Needless to say, moves that create an unfair system are often described as making the system more fair.
True. But it does seem the point that technically something that advantages one side is not automatically gerrymandering stands, if in fact it does lead to more equal a system (and does not just claim to). We shall see whether this one is or not.
Is gerrymandering still gerrymandering if the move to benefit one party is to redress current advantages to the other, resulting in a more equal system? The question is more abstract now the Tory vote ended up, I believe, even more efficient than Labour, and depends on what the new 'fix' would be and how far it would swing the pendulum the other way, but I do feel that moving advantage in one direction is not in of itself unfair, if there was unfairness already existing.
The definition of gerrymandering is that it introduces an unfair advantage to the party making the change.
It's use by Labour during the last parliament was disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. The fact an independent body makes the changes without party interference pours cold water on all their claims.
Needless to say, moves that create an unfair system are often described as making the system more fair.
Also very true, and it was undeniable that, at the time the last change was proposed, the change would have benefitted the incumbents. Objectively though, it's hard to argue with the principle that each MP should represent a [broadly] equal number of constituents.
Toynbee used to be much more measured than she is now. Naturally she's always been left-wing, but I saw her at Tory conference about five years ago, and she was interested in sensible, pragmatic policy, and how it could be implemented. Now she's like a boring Twitter troll who somehow got a column in the Guardian.
Toynbee used to be much more measured than she is now. Naturally she's always been left-wing, but I saw her at Tory conference about five years ago, and she was interested in sensible, pragmatic policy, and how it could be implemented. Now she's like a boring Twitter troll who somehow got a column in the Guardian.
Be fair she did manage to scrape one A level which got her into Oxford.
It might be fair, if still unfortunate (in theory), that any points he does have will be roundly ignored in most places for the time being though.
I think the weakness in the argument is that increasing the turnout would only benefit Labour. They might get a larger slice of the 'lazy cake' than the other parties, but to suggest it would have overturned the result is scrambling for crumbs.
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but can anyone remember a time when so many members of the shadow government have been defeated. I can't think of a time in recent memory when this happened :Balls; Alexander; Curran; Murphy and then more that a dozen shadow ministers. 2 obvious thoughts from this-
a) How quickly will they be able to reorganize themselves. b) Will this help or hider the candidates for the labour leadership who are a break with the past (as so many of the 'past' are no longer there)?.
It might be fair, if still unfortunate (in theory), that any points he does have will be roundly ignored in most places for the time being though.
I think the weakness in the argument is that increasing the turnout would only benefit Labour. They might get a larger slice of the 'lazy cake' than the other parties, but to suggest it would have overturned the result is scrambling for crumbs.
Oh I agree - on this I'm not sure he does have a point, but I'm trying not to rule out the possibility he might on something. Though given how long I said he was not crap and would not cost his side the election, perhaps I've given him enough benefit of the doubt already.
"Colouring in won’t change the world, but the project showed there’s no limit to the ways students can engage in politics if they think creatively."
It reminds me of the old joke about George Dubya ... His library burned down last night. All six books were destroyed, and he hadn't finished colouring in two of them.
Danny565 Well 5 more years when the poor and the young will get a disproportionate share of welfare cuts, including an end to housing benefit for under 25s and a continuation of the bedroom tax and cuts to further and higher education and legal aid, public libraries etc while pensioners continue to get their TV licenses and bus passes protected. If they did not vote they have no one to blame but themselves, pensioners at least can be bothered to take 5 minutes to put a cross in a box to protect their benefits
Miliband has something of a point. If general election turnout was for example at the level of the Scottish referendum turnout (with very high turnout among the very poor and the young), we could've seen Labour get most votes this time.
Whether it's at all realistic to ever expect that turnout in a general election is another question though, and especially whether it's realistic to rely on it happening by 2020.
Turnout crucified Labour in both Scotland and England
Miliband has something of a point. If general election turnout was for example at the level of the Scottish referendum turnout (with very high turnout among the very poor and the young), we could've seen Labour get most votes this time.
Whether it's at all realistic to ever expect that turnout in a general election is another question though, and especially whether it's realistic to rely on it happening by 2020.
Turnout crucified Labour in both Scotland and England
We had our local election with teh GE and turnout was reported by district. Most areas had turnout in teh 65% to 73%.
The Labour supporting area had turnout of 53%.
OK it's the local elections - but as both sets were on the same day and the same polling booth..
Danny565 Well 5 more years when the poor and the young will get a disproportionate share of welfare cuts, including an end to housing benefit for under 25s and a continuation of the bedroom tax and cuts to further and higher education and legal aid, public libraries etc while pensioners continue to get their TV licenses and bus passes protected. If they did not vote they have no one to blame but themselves, pensioners at least can be bothered to take 5 minutes to put a cross in a box to protect their benefits
I don't vote "to protecyt my benefits". I'd happily see a reduction if it meant young people could get going with less difficulty.
That's the trouble with Osborne; he thinks that short-term electoral advantage is the be-all and end-all. And no, I haven't got any any pensioner bonds.
Can't help feeling Liz is going to win the Labour leadership assuming it's not a union stitch up (again) for Burnham.
And against a new Tory leader in 2020 (Osborne?), surely she'd have a good chance of leading Labour back into Government.
(I know, "miserable old Bob writing off the Tories' chances 4 years 11 months before the election..." ;-) )
The curse of Liam's note. If Liz Kendall starts by saying Labour was wrong and the Conservatives were right, the Tories will throw it all back at her and the party in 2020.
Can't help feeling Liz is going to win the Labour leadership assuming it's not a union stitch up (again) for Burnham.
And against a new Tory leader in 2020 (Osborne?), surely she'd have a good chance of leading Labour back into Government.
(I know, "miserable old Bob writing off the Tories' chances 4 years 11 months before the election..." ;-) )
The curse of Liam's note. If Liz Kendall starts by saying Labour was wrong and the Conservatives were right, the Tories will throw it all back at her and the party in 2020.
At least Cameron (or successor) won't be able to fit her in their pocket though.
For Kendall to be a success, you're relying on Conservative voters being fed up with the party by 2020 but still wanting a similar alternative. It's not impossible that some Tory voters will become a bit disillusioned after a decade in power, but a new leader when Cameron stands down could help keep these people on side for one more election.
Can't help feeling Liz is going to win the Labour leadership assuming it's not a union stitch up (again) for Burnham.
And against a new Tory leader in 2020 (Osborne?), surely she'd have a good chance of leading Labour back into Government.
(I know, "miserable old Bob writing off the Tories' chances 4 years 11 months before the election..." ;-) )
The curse of Liam's note. If Liz Kendall starts by saying Labour was wrong and the Conservatives were right, the Tories will throw it all back at her and the party in 2020.
Exactly. I can't understand this idea from a strategic point of view that it makes sense for Labour to apologise for supposedly "overspending". It gives the Tories licence to say "see, it wasn't just a scare story from us, even Labour admit they messed things up!"
OKC Commendable of you, but as a general point the more a section of society turns out to vote the more the Government has to listen to it
Difficult to change without mandatory voting.
When you're young you tend to have less responsibility and fewer dependants. You simply don't have the same motivation to vote as you do in your later years. And by the time you hit retirement, a greater appreciation of how important good goverment is means voting is seen more as a duty than a choice.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
Can't help feeling Liz is going to win the Labour leadership assuming it's not a union stitch up (again) for Burnham.
And against a new Tory leader in 2020 (Osborne?), surely she'd have a good chance of leading Labour back into Government.
(I know, "miserable old Bob writing off the Tories' chances 4 years 11 months before the election..." ;-) )
The curse of Liam's note. If Liz Kendall starts by saying Labour was wrong and the Conservatives were right, the Tories will throw it all back at her and the party in 2020.
At least Cameron (or successor) won't be able to fit her in their pocket though.
OKC Commendable of you, but as a general point the more a section of society turns out to vote the more the Government has to listen to it
Difficult to change without mandatory voting.
When you're young you tend to have less responsibility and fewer dependants. You simply don't have the same motivation to vote as you do in your later years. And by the time you hit retirement, a greater appreciation of how important good goverment is means voting is seen more as a duty than a choice.
And you should hear what our local OAPs thought about Ed Balls. A "clown" was the most polite.
When you get older, you tend to judge politicians based on your prior experience. Ed M was of course a student geek...so had zero credibility..rather like Neil Kinnock..
The surprising comment was that DC had grown on people.
Just noticed that one of the LD councillors in Bristol has shown her true colours and joined The Greens. Her partner contested Bristol West for a minor party in 2010.
In summary SLAB have been in decline for the last decade, with no immediate pathway to recovery.
I thought it was rubbish, the through line is that the SNP are yellow Tories who are brilliant liars and that Labour's only problem is that they didn't yell liar liar pants on fire loud enough.
- one seeks democratic representation for animals - one compares keeping a pet to slavery [I assume the human owner in the case of cats] - another compares pet keeping with the Holocaust - a current trustee talks about companion pet overpopulation and the final contestant seems fairly normal in comparison.
In summary SLAB have been in decline for the last decade, with no immediate pathway to recovery.
I thought it was rubbish, the through line is that the SNP are yellow Tories who are brilliant liars and that Labour's only problem is that they didn't yell liar liar pants on fire loud enough.
I wasn't impressed with the way that he dealt with the 2010 result, which was inconvenient for his thesis, simply by ignoring it.
@paulwaugh: V significant. A Euro realist who could get things done. And on the day of the immigration stats, a proud EU migrant https://t.co/ewcLvLQzWh
- one seeks democratic representation for animals - one compares keeping a pet to slavery [I assume the human owner in the case of cats] - another compares pet keeping with the Holocaust - a current trustee talks about companion pet overpopulation and the final contestant seems fairly normal in comparison.
Cats are absolutely self- centred. If you die, your pet cat will start eating you immediately. A pet dog will mourn for you, and only start eating you as a last resort.
Anorak Well maybe, but if you find you are under 25 and cannot claim housing benefit, it costs you more to undertake further and higher education etc you have no right to complain if you have not voted
Because the coalition "toxified" the LibDems, it meant some of those people voted Green in 2015, some Conservative, and some Labour. They are potentially "winnable" back for the LibDems in the medium term.
There's an alternative scenario, though: the Greens might go a bit sane, and thus effectively replace the LibDems. Who knows? It's a bit early to say how the patterns in the kaleidoscope will fall - a lot will depend on what direction Labour take.
I doubt that, they have a hard core of support who would be regarded as 'fringe' in a normal party. That their leadership is part of that fringe does not bode well for moderation.
I think 'wacky' policies are their USP, to be honest.
Agreed. Too many of their policies are mad/dogmatic either in a broad-gauge way (citizen's income) or narrow gauge way (cultural boycott of Israel).
Not really even a 'green' party. The fringe point is a good one - they're more a rallying point for tiresome Socialist Worker bores than anything else. Shame really; I quite like Caroline Lucas.
People come here to find a voice and, in turn, they give London in particular its voice.
Key word: London.
If you wanted to release a book of poetry that accurately represented the cultural make up of my area then all 6 of the poets would be old white people complaining about people on benefits (whilst enjoying their 20th year on a pension), 3 of them would be white chavs and the other 1 would probably be me. And I'd write a rude limerick about all of the above.
- one seeks democratic representation for animals - one compares keeping a pet to slavery [I assume the human owner in the case of cats] - another compares pet keeping with the Holocaust - a current trustee talks about companion pet overpopulation and the final contestant seems fairly normal in comparison.
As soon as the principle that animals are entitled to more protection than other chattels is conceded, this is where it inevitably ends.
"2016 is the year for EU reform – Next year’s EU agenda looks better than this years’ (though it can change quickly),which will be dominated by Greece and eurozone governance – as our timeline shows. Furthermore, the mid-term review of the EU budget towards the end of 2016 will provide an opening to get some reform of EU spending. It may also be good to get the EU referendum bill through Parliament – including dealing with the SNP demand for a separate Scottish EU vote – before doing the bulk of the negotiation"
According to the Mail Dennis Skinner has won the battle to keep his seat.This is welcome news.No amount of playground bullying by the SNP can deny Dennis Skinner's contractual right to his seat under custom and practice.To change any such contract parties must agree a notice period of amendment.Can the HoC allow the SNP to undermine basic contractual law? A better,and more representative,position for the SNP would be to sit on the Tory side of the HoC.
- one seeks democratic representation for animals - one compares keeping a pet to slavery [I assume the human owner in the case of cats] - another compares pet keeping with the Holocaust - a current trustee talks about companion pet overpopulation and the final contestant seems fairly normal in comparison.
As soon as the principle that animals are entitled to more protection than other chattels is conceded, this is where it inevitably ends.
What we need is some televised Pro-Am celebrity badger-baiting.
According to the Mail Dennis Skinner has won the battle to keep his seat.This is welcome news.No amount of playground bullying by the SNP can deny Dennis Skinner's contractual right to his seat under custom and practice.To change any such contract parties must agree a notice period of amendment.Can the HoC allow the SNP to undermine basic contractual law? A better,and more representative,position for the SNP would be to sit on the Tory side of the HoC.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
OKC Commendable of you, but as a general point the more a section of society turns out to vote the more the Government has to listen to it
Difficult to change without mandatory voting.
When you're young you tend to have less responsibility and fewer dependants. You simply don't have the same motivation to vote as you do in your later years. And by the time you hit retirement, a greater appreciation of how important good goverment is means voting is seen more as a duty than a choice.
And you should hear what our local OAPs thought about Ed Balls. A "clown" was the most polite.
When you get older, you tend to judge politicians based on your prior experience. Ed M was of course a student geek...so had zero credibility..rather like Neil Kinnock..
The surprising comment was that DC had grown on people.
He didn't grow on me. Or my wife.
However, a day or so ago, in a club meeting, where no-one has ever discussed politics,someone was describing a scam which had been reported. Looked up at me and ;said sorry (using my proper name) it was in the Telegraph, so I don't suppose you would see it! And I haven't got a beard and I haven't worn sandals for a while!
OMG - spare us any more of the Labour writhing and whining about the election result - desperately seeking reasons why Ed was right all along - lazy voters, bastard voters [Sadiq Khan] - we wuz robbed! FFS keep it for your branch meetings and have a Miliwankfest for the next 5 years. In the meantime let the big boys run the country properly.
Oh and btw - quoting pollsters to explain the result, I mean pollsters ru kidding me!!!!!
What we need is some televised Pro-Am celebrity badger-baiting.
Yes. It is an Englishman's birthright, sadly in abeyance, to engage in badger-baiting. Any British Bill of Rights worthy of the name must restore this historic human right to the people of England!
What we need is some televised Pro-Am celebrity badger-baiting.
It is an Englishman's birthright, sadly in abeyance, to engage in badger-baiting. Any British Bill of Rights worthy of the name must restore this historic human right to the people of England!
And it used to be a (white) American's birthright to own slaves.
@GuidoFawkes: This is great; Hodges, Rentoul, Collins, Montie and Mehdi all accusing each other of being wrong. Pouting pundos https://t.co/MM0Tk51tB1
Tim gives it away here. It's clear it's personal and it's about him, he feels unloved and bitter Cameron has never called:
Tim Montgomerie ن 9m9 minutes ago Tim Montgomerie ن @montie @PCollinsTimes@steverichards14 I think he's more likely to employ you --- in fact he's more likely to employ 99% of the populAtion than me
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
- one seeks democratic representation for animals - one compares keeping a pet to slavery [I assume the human owner in the case of cats] - another compares pet keeping with the Holocaust - a current trustee talks about companion pet overpopulation and the final contestant seems fairly normal in comparison.
As soon as the principle that animals are entitled to more protection than other chattels is conceded, this is where it inevitably ends.
I think it was Germaine Greer who said "the logical consequence of animal rights is votes for clams."
Cats are absolutely self- centred. If you die, your pet cat will start eating you immediately. A pet dog will mourn for you, and only start eating you as a last resort.
Cats are absolutely self- centred rational. If you die, your pet cat will start eating you immediately. A pet dog will mourn for you, and only start eating you as a last resort.
What we need is some televised Pro-Am celebrity badger-baiting.
It is an Englishman's birthright, sadly in abeyance, to engage in badger-baiting. Any British Bill of Rights worthy of the name must restore this historic human right to the people of England!
And it used to be a (white) American's birthright to own slaves.
- one seeks democratic representation for animals - one compares keeping a pet to slavery [I assume the human owner in the case of cats] - another compares pet keeping with the Holocaust - a current trustee talks about companion pet overpopulation and the final contestant seems fairly normal in comparison.
As soon as the principle that animals are entitled to more protection than other chattels is conceded, this is where it inevitably ends.
What we need is some televised Pro-Am celebrity badger-baiting.
Brits are obsessive animal lovers because we're socially uneasy around other people. We find it much easier to build relationships with animals, and project our desire for simplicity and innocence, and our emotions about that, onto them.
What we need is some televised Pro-Am celebrity badger-baiting.
It is an Englishman's birthright, sadly in abeyance, to engage in badger-baiting. Any British Bill of Rights worthy of the name must restore this historic human right to the people of England!
And it used to be a (white) American's birthright to own slaves.
Anyone know when Hodges is doing his streak of shame through Whitehall? - I have to travel up to town next week and hope to avoid any problems with traffic etc.
"2016 is the year for EU reform – Next year’s EU agenda looks better than this years’ (though it can change quickly),which will be dominated by Greece and eurozone governance – as our timeline shows. Furthermore, the mid-term review of the EU budget towards the end of 2016 will provide an opening to get some reform of EU spending. It may also be good to get the EU referendum bill through Parliament – including dealing with the SNP demand for a separate Scottish EU vote – before doing the bulk of the negotiation"
A vote before negotiation would be utter insanity. It would ensure that: (a) mild Eurosceptics who voted for "in" would likely feel betrayed (possibly tearing the Conservative Party apart) if the settlement did not live up to their expectations, and (b) it would reduce Cameron's ability to say to his EU partners "I need more, otherwise I won't be able to sell it to the British people."
And it used to be a (white) American's birthright to own slaves.
I think it was it Lord Mansfield who said in 1772:
The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the badger must be discharged.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Labour's problem is that they don't think the people did reject that view.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
He did? He offered a half-baked analysis of what the problem was, but offered practically no solutions.
Again, the "post-election" polling OGH posted earlier shows that the public just doesn't share this view of Miliband as a radical socialist; the problem was he was seen as so inept that he wasn't able to run a bath, let alone an economy, irrespective of what his policies were.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Did they? Clearly Labour lost the election but if there was a national debate about opposing policies rather than who'd be in whose pocket, it passed me by. Surely Miliband was a bad leader because by polling day, no-one had much idea of what he actually planned to do in office: even the #EdStone contained platitudes rather than policies.
And it used to be a (white) American's birthright to own slaves.
I think it was it Lord Mansfield who said in 1772:
The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the badger must be discharged.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Labour's problem is that they don't think the people did reject that view.
The polling doesn't say that people rejected that view either.
(Admittedly polling now comes with a great caveat, but still.)
@GuidoFawkes: This is great; Hodges, Rentoul, Collins, Montie and Mehdi all accusing each other of being wrong. Pouting pundos https://t.co/MM0Tk51tB1
Tim gives it away here. It's clear it's personal and it's about him, he feels unloved and bitter Cameron has never called:
Tim Montgomerie ن 9m9 minutes ago Tim Montgomerie ن @montie @PCollinsTimes@steverichards14 I think he's more likely to employ you --- in fact he's more likely to employ 99% of the populAtion than me
@GuidoFawkes: This is great; Hodges, Rentoul, Collins, Montie and Mehdi all accusing each other of being wrong. Pouting pundos https://t.co/MM0Tk51tB1
Tim gives it away here. It's clear it's personal and it's about him, he feels unloved and bitter Cameron has never called:
Tim Montgomerie ن 9m9 minutes ago Tim Montgomerie ن @montie @PCollinsTimes@steverichards14 I think he's more likely to employ you --- in fact he's more likely to employ 99% of the populAtion than me
I've just heard that tomorrow's edition of Bild is carrying the story that Greece/the IMF/and the Eurogroup are on the verge of reaching an agreement (at least partially due to intense American pressure). Apparently the only sticking point is on the VAT rate, where the IMF is demanding an increase, and the Greek government is resisting.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Labour's problem is that they don't think the people did reject that view.
The polling doesn't say that people rejected that view either.
(Admittedly polling now comes with a great caveat, but still.)
I've just heard that tomorrow's edition of Bild is carrying the story that Greece/the IMF/and the Eurogroup are on the verge of reaching an agreement (at least partially due to intense American pressure). Apparently the only sticking point is on the VAT rate, where the IMF is demanding an increase, and the Greek government is resisting.
The only question is: can SYRIZA sign the deal and stay as one party?
Comments
It's use by Labour during the last parliament was disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. The fact an independent body makes the changes without party interference pours cold water on all their claims.
Here's the thing, I think there are roughly 15% of the people who:
- have strong views on civil liberties (snoopers charter, etc.)
- are broadly egalitarian in outlook, but who have no love for the unions
- are internationalist in outlook
- tend to believe in climate change, but don't obsess about it
Because the coalition "toxified" the LibDems, it meant some of those people voted Green in 2015, some Conservative, and some Labour. They are potentially "winnable" back for the LibDems in the medium term.
I am not convinced that Parliament can have intended that a jury should be expected to understand and apply the sophisticated distinctions which Lord Sumption seeks to draw.
I am not an ardent reader of legal judgements, but that feels like an unsubtle slam to Lord Sumption. 'Sophisticated' as a euphemism for nonsensical or something. I almost hope the pair are like competing academics who for years publish subtle takedowns of the others' position across countless articles and books . But probably it's all very professional in the disagreement.
I think 'wacky' policies are their USP, to be honest.
Tomorrow the political journalist, Don Brind, is joining our small team of regular guest slot contributors. He is somebody I’ve known a very long time since we both worked at the BBC in the 1970s. In recent times Don has been a regular contributor on The Week
Back in 2007 Don gave me a well argued steer on the then LAB deputy leadership contest to the effect that Harriet Harman, then 10/1, was going to get it. She won.
He’s got very close contacts with LAB and will act as a balance to David Herdson and TSE who are both active Tories. His first column will be tomorrow.
The UK really dodged a bullet when Labour lost.
I could see any possible outcome from about 5-15 MPs currently, assuming boundary reforms don't dramatically change the picture.
Whether it's at all realistic to ever expect that turnout in a general election is another question though, and especially whether it's realistic to rely on it happening by 2020.
a) How quickly will they be able to reorganize themselves.
b) Will this help or hider the candidates for the labour leadership who are a break with the past (as so many of the 'past' are no longer there)?.
Early 400s surely that target from here.
"Colouring in won’t change the world, but the project showed there’s no limit to the ways students can engage in politics if they think creatively."
It reminds me of the old joke about George Dubya ... His library burned down last night. All six books were destroyed, and he hadn't finished colouring in two of them.
And against a new Tory leader in 2020 (Osborne?), surely she'd have a good chance of leading Labour back into Government.
(I know, "miserable old Bob writing off the Tories' chances 4 years 11 months before the election..." ;-) )
Agree not to vote if paid a small bribe. As there is no action , it's not a bribe.
I'll abstain from voting for a round £2500 a year for 10 years..
The Labour supporting area had turnout of 53%.
OK it's the local elections - but as both sets were on the same day and the same polling booth..
Say it all.
That's the trouble with Osborne; he thinks that short-term electoral advantage is the be-all and end-all.
And no, I haven't got any any pensioner bonds.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/21/how-alex-salmond-nicola-sturgeon-pulled-off-political-triumph-lifetime
In summary SLAB have been in decline for the last decade, with no immediate pathway to recovery.
When you're young you tend to have less responsibility and fewer dependants. You simply don't have the same motivation to vote as you do in your later years. And by the time you hit retirement, a greater appreciation of how important good goverment is means voting is seen more as a duty than a choice.
http://img.spokeo.com/public/900-600/greg_davies_2006_09_27.jpg
When you get older, you tend to judge politicians based on your prior experience. Ed M was of course a student geek...so had zero credibility..rather like Neil Kinnock..
The surprising comment was that DC had grown on people.
'@schofieldkevin: Neil Kinnock set to back @andyburnhammp,'
Kiss of death.
- one seeks democratic representation for animals
- one compares keeping a pet to slavery [I assume the human owner in the case of cats]
- another compares pet keeping with the Holocaust
- a current trustee talks about companion pet overpopulation
and the final contestant seems fairly normal in comparison.
https://twitter.com/SteveHiltonx
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/22/poetry-jeremy-hunt-ethnic-imbalance
Not really even a 'green' party. The fringe point is a good one - they're more a rallying point for tiresome Socialist Worker bores than anything else. Shame really; I quite like Caroline Lucas.
http://openeurope.org.uk/blog/the-upsides-and-downsides-of-an-early-eu-referendum/#.VV4gmbyAsp0.twitter
He doesn't sound too keen on a 2016 referendum.
"2016 is the year for EU reform – Next year’s EU agenda looks better than this years’ (though it can change quickly),which will be dominated by Greece and eurozone governance – as our timeline shows. Furthermore, the mid-term review of the EU budget towards the end of 2016 will provide an opening to get some reform of EU spending. It may also be good to get the EU referendum bill through Parliament – including dealing with the SNP demand for a separate Scottish EU vote – before doing the bulk of the negotiation"
A better,and more representative,position for the SNP would be to sit on the Tory side of the HoC.
That's great trolling. Inc sourcing the Daily Mail! If you really believe it - may I suggest sectioning?
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
However, a day or so ago, in a club meeting, where no-one has ever discussed politics,someone was describing a scam which had been reported. Looked up at me and ;said sorry (using my proper name) it was in the Telegraph, so I don't suppose you would see it!
And I haven't got a beard and I haven't worn sandals for a while!
Must have an aura!
Oh and btw - quoting pollsters to explain the result, I mean pollsters ru kidding me!!!!!
Tim Montgomerie ن
9m9 minutes ago
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie
@PCollinsTimes @steverichards14 I think he's more likely to employ you --- in fact he's more likely to employ 99% of the populAtion than me
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Which is a wonderful turn of phrase.
There is much to be learned from history.
Anyone know when Hodges is doing his streak of shame through Whitehall? - I have to travel up to town next week and hope to avoid any problems with traffic etc.
Again, the "post-election" polling OGH posted earlier shows that the public just doesn't share this view of Miliband as a radical socialist; the problem was he was seen as so inept that he wasn't able to run a bath, let alone an economy, irrespective of what his policies were.
(Admittedly polling now comes with a great caveat, but still.)
http://www.gqrr.com/uk-post-election-6
I've just heard that tomorrow's edition of Bild is carrying the story that Greece/the IMF/and the Eurogroup are on the verge of reaching an agreement (at least partially due to intense American pressure). Apparently the only sticking point is on the VAT rate, where the IMF is demanding an increase, and the Greek government is resisting.