Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
An insight into what motivated them to vote en masse would be truly fascinating. I've not seen any attempt to understand this huge group.
Miss. P., I cannot speak for the majority of this group, but I have asked some questions of some of the denizens Willow Way council estate.
They live in a constituency that has always and will always elect a Conservative MP. The local council has always been and probably always been conservative controlled. Even the parish council, officially non-political, is run by the well to do types. In short their view doesn't matter and nobody gives a stuff about them.
The referendum changed that. They had, for many for the first time in their lives, a vote that counted and they, some for the first time in their lives, used it.
Yes, for the first time in ages a lot of non voters in safe seats went to vote, because it was the first time in living memory they had the opportunity to have their vote count - so they used it give the Establishment a bloody nose!
Exactly. The current FPTP system where parties ignore all but 80 seats has led to understandable apathy.
Yes, it's a poor system whereby your vote only really counts in a hundred or so constituencies.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
What would you do about it?
After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.
The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.
If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
Twisting my words there. I said that despite being ladled with attention, they didn't bother to engage.
You didn't answer my question.
Get rid of FPTP immediately. It encourages apathy and disengagement. And it means most voerst votes are irrelevant.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
What would you do about it?
After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.
The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.
If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
I don't understand it. The first general election I voted in was 1987, at Exeter University, and I'd guess 60-65% of the students voted.
I was excited to vote in 1979. I'd had it impressed on me that my great-grandfathers & grandfathers had all given their lives to ensure that I could vote. I felt very adult and privileged.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
What would you do about it?
After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.
The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.
If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
As someone just under 30, I have very little time for my left wing Facebook whinging friends who I suspect don't bother to vote.
To be honest those people probably did vote. There is just a large minority, or even a majority, of young people who genuinely don't care either way - they are covered up by the young who do vote and tend to be the most vocal of all the age groups. A more polarised group that another demographics.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
I'd rather pin it on the 35 Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn. With a side-salad of blame for Ed Miliband for running away from his defeat.
Labour should employ some Tories on a convert consultancy basis.
I can't get over how totally useless they are. Over a hundred have huffed off - and Corbyn is still there.
It's remarkable. I mentioned a few threads ago a chappy I worked with. He'd spent several yrs at Her Majesty's Pleasure for tax fraud. He was shameless - the conventional rules didn't apply. He was unmanageable.
His IQ and charm were 100x that of Corbyn - but the same traits apply.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
Even before 2001, but especially after, Brown and his cronies were doing all they could to both undermine Blair and destroy any potential rivals for the leadership. They were doing the opposition's job for them in attacking their own side.
Thanks to that, the best Labour could bring forward when Brown finally fell in 2010 were the Miliband brothers. An entire generation of would-be leaders had been seen off by Brown's ambition and bullying.
Blair's decision in 2001 not to replace Brown at the treasury (as I think he wanted to do) was fairly catastrophic, especially for the Labour party.
My problem with that is Mr Osborne seems to be both very pally with Mr Gove, and has several of his minions associated with Ms May's team.
I think the only way to get rid of the little perisher is if Leadsom wins.
Surely Gove or May would move him even if they wanted him in the Cabinet? After the doom-mongering campaign his position really is untenable.
The Sun write of the Gove/Bojo affair had Gove insisting on Osborne on board.
"A flashpoint also developed between Gove and Johnson over whether Boris should give George Osborne a top job in his Cabinet.
As the Chancellor’s old friend, Mr Gove was desperate to bring him on board their operation and bombarded Mr Osborne with texts and calls last weekend."
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
What would you do about it?
After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.
The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.
If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
I don't understand it. The first general election I voted in was 1987, at Exeter University, and I'd guess 60-65% of the students voted.
We have to be careful about reading too much into turnout percentages. Most students will be registered twice but may vote at most once.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
So confirmation that this "coup" was just the Labour MPs throwing a mindless tantrum without even any thought about what the alternative would be. And yet, we members are supposed to believe these people have the competence to lead the party effectively and to win a General Election? Even leaving aside points of principles, the "moderates" are just total amateurs at basic politics, even moreso than Team Corbyn.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
What would you do about it?
After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.
The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.
If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
Twisting my words there. I said that despite being ladled with attention, they didn't bother to engage.
You didn't answer my question.
Get rid of FPTP immediately. It encourages apathy and disengagement. And it means most voerst votes are irrelevant.
Nonsense. That's eff all to do with engaging young voters.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
An insight into what motivated them to vote en masse would be truly fascinating. I've not seen any attempt to understand this huge group.
Miss. P., I cannot speak for the majority of this group, but I have asked some questions of some of the denizens Willow Way council estate.
They live in a constituency that has always and will always elect a Conservative MP. The local council has always been and probably always been conservative controlled. Even the parish council, officially non-political, is run by the well to do types. In short their view doesn't matter and nobody gives a stuff about them.
The referendum changed that. They had, for many for the first time in their lives, a vote that counted and they, some for the first time in their lives, used it.
Yes, for the first time in ages a lot of non voters in safe seats went to vote, because it was the first time in living memory they had the opportunity to have their vote count - so they used it give the Establishment a bloody nose!
Exactly. The current FPTP system where parties ignore all but 80 seats has led to understandable apathy.
Watching the referendum is the first time I've thought about all these people, and how we need them to re-engage politically.
Now it appears Corbyn is safe, and the rest of the PLP are too spineless to either challenge or split, there's a massive opportunity for UKIP under a working-class leader to pick up dramatic numbers of votes in the next election if they can reach out to these disaffected people and have them continue to vote.
There's also some thought to be done on the system that elects MPs, but it needs to be done carefully, probably under a Royal Commission, to ensure that any changes are not made purely for party political advantage, and that a strong local independent can still make it to Parliament.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
What would you do about it?
After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.
The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.
If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
Twisting my words there. I said that despite being ladled with attention, they didn't bother to engage.
You didn't answer my question.
Get rid of FPTP immediately. It encourages apathy and disengagement. And it means most voerst votes are irrelevant.
Leave FPTP in place for the Commons but elect the Lords proportionally based on the parties' Commons votes.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
Even before 2001, but especially after, Brown and his cronies were doing all they could to both undermine Blair and destroy any potential rivals for the leadership. They were doing the opposition's job for them in attacking their own side.
Thanks to that, the best Labour could bring forward when Brown finally fell in 2010 were the Miliband brothers. An entire generation of would-be leaders had been seen off by Brown's ambition and bullying.
Blair's decision in 2001 not to replace Brown at the treasury (as I think he wanted to do) was fairly catastrophic, especially for the Labour party.
Before today, I think there was a chance Labour might be able to ride out the Corbyn mess, and maybe tack back to the centre. Chilcot killed that today, in my opinion. The party membership will purge anything remotely Blairite.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
An insight into what motivated them to vote en masse would be truly fascinating. I've not seen any attempt to understand this huge group.
Miss. P., I cannot speak for the majority of this group, but I have asked some questions of some of the denizens Willow Way council estate.
They live in a constituency that has always and will always elect a Conservative MP. The local council has always been and probably always been conservative controlled. Even the parish council, officially non-political, is run by the well to do types. In short their view doesn't matter and nobody gives a stuff about them.
The referendum changed that. They had, for many for the first time in their lives, a vote that counted and they, some for the first time in their lives, used it.
Yes, for the first time in ages a lot of non voters in safe seats went to vote, because it was the first time in living memory they had the opportunity to have their vote count - so they used it give the Establishment a bloody nose!
And why shouldn't they Mr. Pit. The bloke who checks the local car parks and issues tickets hasn't had a pay rise in years, what does the difference of 1.2% of modelled GDP growth over 14 years mean to him? Why should he care that some commercial property trust funds have got the colly wobbles?
If you want to give strong independents then STV is the system. If you want to REALLY consolidate the two party system, AV is good (But that's been rightly rejected). FPTP+ gives people in safe seats some sort of a say.
And I think the 2010-15 Gov't will be looked on well - coalitions are not neccessarily a bad thing.
Blair's decision in 2001 not to replace Brown at the treasury (as I think he wanted to do) was fairly catastrophic, especially for the Labour party.
Yes, Blair's big pitch today about needing to have leaders who are capable of tackling big decisions rings hollow when you consider that he wasn't even capable of making a decision to sack a dysfunctional Chancellor.
That article still says there'll be a challenge by Angela Eagle. At least we'd know how things stand. If the YouGov poll on Labour members was right, he'd have a much reduced lead compared to when he was elected at least.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
She is transgendered. Don't oppress her with your narrow gender roles...
We did it! Commons votes by 245-2 to secure status of EU nationals in the UK. Govt can't now retreat on this. Thanks to everyone who helped.
WTF.
It was just a motion wasnt it. Dosent change anything.
This is the real world now. Lefty virtue signalling is just glorifying their weakness of resolve.
Perhaps now that parliament will be re-aquiring real power we will start to get politicians who stand up for the countries interest not wave their virtue like a shroud in the way that powerless student union activists do.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
Even before 2001, but especially after, Brown and his cronies were doing all they could to both undermine Blair and destroy any potential rivals for the leadership. They were doing the opposition's job for them in attacking their own side.
Thanks to that, the best Labour could bring forward when Brown finally fell in 2010 were the Miliband brothers. An entire generation of would-be leaders had been seen off by Brown's ambition and bullying.
Blair's decision in 2001 not to replace Brown at the treasury (as I think he wanted to do) was fairly catastrophic, especially for the Labour party.
Before today, I think there was a chance Labour might be able to ride out the Corbyn mess, and maybe tack back to the centre. Chilcot killed that today, in my opinion. The party membership will purge anything remotely Blairite.
I think you're right. My opinion is that Corbyn sees his role as changing the party so it is institutionally hard-left - to change the very structures of the party so that it would be hard for any centre-left Blair-style figure to come to the fore. Once he's done that, he'll sod off and someone more competent (but equally left-wing) will take over.
This leaves the sane party supporters and MPs with a rather existential problem.
Yes, it's a poor system whereby your vote only really counts in a hundred or so constituencies.
So move to one of those constituencies if you want to influence the vote there. That's what makes it such a great system. You have the ultimate power. Want to win Thurrock for UKIP or Gower for Labour - go and live there.
And let's not forget the feeling of joy and sense of pride one gets from living in a safe seat of ones own party. Not really a wasted vote then either. (I'm moving to Surrey East in the next few weeks and can't wait to be living somewhere with a 20k+ Tory majority.)
I'd be open to changing the rules slightly so that electors can pick which constituency they vote in - either where they live, where they work, or somewhere else they have a provable connection. But you can only change once every electoral cycle. Could help out the Boundary Commission if people signaled their preferred constituency ahead of each review.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
An insight into what motivated them to vote en masse would be truly fascinating. I've not seen any attempt to understand this huge group.
Miss. P., I cannot speak for the majority of this group, but I have asked some questions of some of the denizens Willow Way council estate.
They live in a constituency that has always and will always elect a Conservative MP. The local council has always been and probably always been conservative controlled. Even the parish council, officially non-political, is run by the well to do types. In short their view doesn't matter and nobody gives a stuff about them.
The referendum changed that. They had, for many for the first time in their lives, a vote that counted and they, some for the first time in their lives, used it.
Yes, for the first time in ages a lot of non voters in safe seats went to vote, because it was the first time in living memory they had the opportunity to have their vote count - so they used it give the Establishment a bloody nose!
Exactly. The current FPTP system where parties ignore all but 80 seats has led to understandable apathy.
Watching the referendum is the first time I've thought about all these people, and how we need them to re-engage politically.
Now it appears Corbyn is safe, and the rest of the PLP are too spineless to either challenge or split, there's a massive opportunity for UKIP under a working-class leader to pick up dramatic numbers of votes in the next election if they can reach out to these disaffected people and have them continue to vote.
There's also some thought to be done on the system that elects MPs, but it needs to be done carefully, probably under a Royal Commission, to ensure that any changes are not made purely for party political advantage, and that a strong local independent can still make it to Parliament.
Any single change will be defeated in isolation, as we have seen with AV and Lords reform. Only if a whole package of constitutional reform is constructed will it pass.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
An insight into what motivated them to vote en masse would be truly fascinating. I've not seen any attempt to understand this huge group.
Miss. P., I cannot speak for the majority of this group, but I have asked some questions of some of the denizens Willow Way council estate.
They live in a constituency that has always and will always elect a Conservative MP. The local council has always been and probably always been conservative controlled. Even the parish council, officially non-political, is run by the well to do types. In short their view doesn't matter and nobody gives a stuff about them.
The referendum changed that. They had, for many for the first time in their lives, a vote that counted and they, some for the first time in their lives, used it.
Yes, for the first time in ages a lot of non voters in safe seats went to vote, because it was the first time in living memory they had the opportunity to have their vote count - so they used it give the Establishment a bloody nose!
And why shouldn't they Mr. Pit. The bloke who checks the local car parks and issues tickets hasn't had a pay rise in years, what does the difference of 1.2% of modelled GDP growth over 14 years mean to him? Why should he care that some commercial property trust funds have got the colly wobbles?
Absolutely! Hopefully they will stay engaged now they've seen what voting can do. There's a massive gap about to open up as Labour commit suicide by Corbyn.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
I still fell sorry for her after the Sofa Incident
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
Blair's decision in 2001 not to replace Brown at the treasury (as I think he wanted to do) was fairly catastrophic, especially for the Labour party.
Yes, Blair's big pitch today about needing to have leaders who are capable of tackling big decisions rings hollow when you consider that he wasn't even capable of making a decision to sack a dysfunctional Chancellor.
To be fair, I don't think Brown was seen as dysfunctional by outsiders in 2001. The economy was doing well after a couple of years of following Major's plans, and he'd only just started diverting off course.
If you read political memoirs though, it's clear that he and his team were already undermining Blair and others.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
She is transgendered. Don't oppress her with your narrow gender roles...
Ze is transgendered. Don't oppress zir with your authoritarian bi-gendered fascism.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
She is transgendered. Don't oppress her with your narrow gender roles...
Her owner did that. She's a slave to his neo-liberal agenda. How can anyone treat the vulnerable canine population in such a cavalier fashion? King Charles despite his anti-republican sentiments would agree.
Yes, it's a poor system whereby your vote only really counts in a hundred or so constituencies.
So move to one of those constituencies if you want to influence the vote there. That's what makes it such a great system. You have the ultimate power. Want to win Thurrock for UKIP or Gower for Labour - go and live there.
And let's not forget the feeling of joy and sense of pride one gets from living in a safe seat of ones own party. Not really a wasted vote then either. (I'm moving to Surrey East in the next few weeks and can't wait to be living somewhere with a 20k+ Tory majority.)
I'd be open to changing the rules slightly so that electors can pick which constituency they vote in - either where they live, where they work, or somewhere else they have a provable connection. But you can only change once every electoral cycle. Could help out the Boundary Commission if people signaled their preferred constituency ahead of each review.
Blimey, the last thing in my decision to move anywhere would be if it's a marginal. As it happens I think my seat will be a potential marginal next GE (If Labour continue to bump along the bottom) but I've headed out to vote in Bath, Coventry South, Sheffield Central and now Derbyshire NE at each GE.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
Blimey – it’s all over, - apart from the shouting, retribution, resignations and the final split.
You forgot the re-eduction - and the reselections, Comrade....
Well WTF was Watson doing then.. He's fucked up bigtime/ Labour are finished and the Tories can see blue skies.. Worrying times.. Last time this happened Maggie went bonkers with the poll tax.. it ended badly...
Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?
Javid. But we're all Keynsians now, comrade.
Indeed, the economy is sliding into recession but the tank is dry...
I voted out. I guess I have to take the Rockhound view.
Colonel William Sharp: [In response to Rockhound riding the nuclear warhead] Get off... the nuclear... warhead. Rockhound: I was doing that guy from that movie, you know, Slim Pickens, where he rides it all the way in, the nuclear warhead. Colonel William Sharp: Now. Rockhound: Oh, you didn't see that one, huh?
Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?
Javid. But we're all Keynsians now, comrade.
Indeed, the economy is sliding into recession but the tank is dry...
I voted out. I guess I have to take the Rockhound view.
Colonel William Sharp: [In response to Rockhound riding the nuclear warhead] Get off... the nuclear... warhead. Rockhound: I was doing that guy from that movie, you know, Slim Pickens, where he rides it all the way in, the nuclear warhead. Colonel William Sharp: Now. Rockhound: Oh, you didn't see that one, huh?
We can certainly talk ourselves into a recession. We don't _have_ to have a recession.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
She is transgendered. Don't oppress her with your narrow gender roles...
Her owner did that. She's a slave to his neo-liberal agenda. How can anyone treat the vulnerable canine population in such a cavalier fashion? King Charles despite his anti-republican sentiments would agree.
#AllDogsMatter
Owner? Owner? OWNER?
How dare you suggest some hierarchy of authority, some master-slave relationship!
She is a free partner who merely chooses to co-exist temporarily in a similar physical location to @tyson
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
I still fell sorry for her after the Sofa Incident
I can honestly say that I've only arghed a pet for a horrific wine crime once. A whole bottle of juicy red met a greyhound happy tail and splattered all over my pale green Chinese rug.
I tried everything - but a tell-tale pale purple menace remained right in the middle. Hansel was such a wonderful doggy that all his misdemeanours were quickly forgotten.
The sensible wing of Labour now need to start talking seriously to the unions and potential donors for SDP2. Corbyn's going nowhere until at least 2020, when he will hand over to his appointed successor.
In the meantime there are boundary changes coming up which will necessitate everyone being deselected, and Corbyn will no doubt try and weaken further the role of the MPs in deciding the Party leadership in future.
I'm with the PM here, as he said last week at PMQs for the good of the country there needs to be a government-in-waiting sitting opposite the govt and holding them to account. It's clear that Corbyn can't do this, so they need to come together collectively and form a party that will.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
I still fell sorry for her after the Sofa Incident
I can honestly say that I've only arghed a pet for a horrific wine crime once. A whole bottle of juicy red met a greyhound happy tail and splattered all over my pale green Chinese rug.
I tried everything - but a tell-tale pale purple menace remained right in the middle. Hansel was such a wonderful doggy that all his misdemeanours were quickly forgotten.
Sure - but this was tyson blaming Trotsky for the mess that he made...!
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
I don't understand it. The first general election I voted in was 1987, at Exeter University, and I'd guess 60-65% of the students voted.
I was excited to vote in 1979. I'd had it impressed on me that my great-grandfathers & grandfathers had all given their lives to ensure that I could vote. I felt very adult and privileged.
My first vote was in 2010 and I felt excited about it (Cleggmania!). 2015 was a lot more grudging. I think the fact that we are commenting here means we are all outside the mainstream in our attitude to voting though. Turnout has decreased across all groups, above all amongst the young, but it's not just a youth problem. One of the small slivers of good news I can take from the EU vote is the big turnout increase. I think if we changed our voting system to one that really made every vote count, we could see better turnout (not necessarily at EU ref levels - that was also motivated by the enormity of the decision and the fact that we weren't voting for cheatin' lyin' politicians).
Personally I also support compulsory voting - it should be viewed as a duty, and you have to opt-out specifically to avoid the fine. Give an option for None of the Above or just spoil your ballot if you can't bring yourself to endorse the system.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
An insight into what motivated them to vote en masse would be truly fascinating. I've not seen any attempt to understand this huge group.
Miss. P., I cannot speak for the majority of this group, but I have asked some questions of some of the denizens Willow Way council estate.
They live in a constituency that has always and will always elect a Conservative MP. The local council has always been and probably always been conservative controlled. Even the parish council, officially non-political, is run by the well to do types. In short their view doesn't matter and nobody gives a stuff about them.
The referendum changed that. They had, for many for the first time in their lives, a vote that counted and they, some for the first time in their lives, used it.
Yes, for the first time in ages a lot of non voters in safe seats went to vote, because it was the first time in living memory they had the opportunity to have their vote count - so they used it give the Establishment a bloody nose!
And why shouldn't they Mr. Pit. The bloke who checks the local car parks and issues tickets hasn't had a pay rise in years, what does the difference of 1.2% of modelled GDP growth over 14 years mean to him? Why should he care that some commercial property trust funds have got the colly wobbles?
Absolutely! Hopefully they will stay engaged now they've seen what voting can do. There's a massive gap about to open up as Labour commit suicide by Corbyn.
Alas, Mr. Pit, for the likes of my car park man that will be it. He had his, he is unlikely to get another in which he has a real say, a vote that actually counts. He will have a Conservative MP, a Conservative Local Council and a Parish Council run by the toffs or the rest of his life. But at least he got to have his say, just once.
I bet the guy who did the interview didn't for a second consider the possibility that he might be interviewing someone who would have a profound effect upon UK politics.
In the meantime there are boundary changes coming up which will necessitate everyone being deselected, and Corbyn will no doubt try and weaken further the role of the MPs in deciding the Party leadership in future.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
I still fell sorry for her after the Sofa Incident
I can honestly say that I've only arghed a pet for a horrific wine crime once. A whole bottle of juicy red met a greyhound happy tail and splattered all over my pale green Chinese rug.
I tried everything - but a tell-tale pale purple menace remained right in the middle. Hansel was such a wonderful doggy that all his misdemeanours were quickly forgotten.
Had a refurb done last year, kitchen, study, utility room. All new woodwork. Day after the workmen had departed, Yorkiepoos (Molly & Rosie) had chewed every piece of skirting board, stair paneling and pillar. Their death sentences were commuted to hugs.
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
I don't understand it. The first general election I voted in was 1987, at Exeter University, and I'd guess 60-65% of the students voted.
I was excited to vote in 1979. I'd had it impressed on me that my great-grandfathers & grandfathers had all given their lives to ensure that I could vote. I felt very adult and privileged.
My first vote was in 2010 and I felt excited about it (Cleggmania!). 2015 was a lot more grudging. I think the fact that we are commenting here means we are all outside the mainstream in our attitude to voting though. Turnout has decreased across all groups, above all amongst the young, but it's not just a youth problem. One of the small slivers of good news I can take from the EU vote is the big turnout increase. I think if we changed our voting system to one that really made every vote count, we could see better turnout (not necessarily at EU ref levels - that was also motivated by the enormity of the decision and the fact that we weren't voting for cheatin' lyin' politicians).
Personally I also support compulsory voting - it should be viewed as a duty, and you have to opt-out specifically to avoid the fine. Give an option for None of the Above or just spoil your ballot if you can't bring yourself to endorse the system.
I'm against compulsory voting. If you can't be arsed to vote, then you have no right to moan. That is punishment enough for me.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
It matters bwrong.
What would you do about it?
After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.
The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.
If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
I don't understand it. The first general election I voted in was 1987, at Exeter University, and I'd guess 60-65% of the students voted.
I was excited to vote in 1979. I'd had it impressed on me that my great-grandfathers & grandfathers had all given their lives to ensure that I could vote. I felt very adult and privileged.
It was rather moving to be at the count in the small hours of 24th June. I could see history being made, and made by peaceful and democratic means, not by bloodshed. Although I would have been on the other side, I'm sure felt the same way as a Labour activist would have felt in 1945.
Yes, it's a poor system whereby your vote only really counts in a hundred or so constituencies.
So move to one of those constituencies if you want to influence the vote there. That's what makes it such a great system. You have the ultimate power. Want to win Thurrock for UKIP or Gower for Labour - go and live there.
And let's not forget the feeling of joy and sense of pride one gets from living in a safe seat of ones own party. Not really a wasted vote then either. (I'm moving to Surrey East in the next few weeks and can't wait to be living somewhere with a 20k+ Tory majority.)
I'd be open to changing the rules slightly so that electors can pick which constituency they vote in - either where they live, where they work, or somewhere else they have a provable connection. But you can only change once every electoral cycle. Could help out the Boundary Commission if people signaled their preferred constituency ahead of each review.
Bonkers. Proves what a hard system it is to support I suppose if that's the best you can do.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
She is transgendered. Don't oppress her with your narrow gender roles...
Her owner did that. She's a slave to his neo-liberal agenda. How can anyone treat the vulnerable canine population in such a cavalier fashion? King Charles despite his anti-republican sentiments would agree.
#AllDogsMatter
Owner? Owner? OWNER?
How dare you suggest some hierarchy of authority, some master-slave relationship!
She is a free partner who merely chooses to co-exist temporarily in a similar physical location to @tyson
Dogs are only comfortable in heirarchical structures, where they know their place. Dogs have owners, cats have staff.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
She is transgendered. Don't oppress her with your narrow gender roles...
Her owner did that. She's a slave to his neo-liberal agenda. How can anyone treat the vulnerable canine population in such a cavalier fashion? King Charles despite his anti-republican sentiments would agree.
#AllDogsMatter
Owner? Owner? OWNER?
How dare you suggest some hierarchy of authority, some master-slave relationship!
She is a free partner who merely chooses to co-exist temporarily in a similar physical location to @tyson
Cats are owners, we are slaves.
We open doors and windows at their will, occupy 10% of the bed space as they stretch out, and put off going for a wee when they're pretending to be asleep on our laps.
In the meantime there are boundary changes coming up which will necessitate everyone being deselected, and Corbyn will no doubt try and weaken further the role of the MPs in deciding the Party leadership in future.
How many seats will be affected?
All 600 of the new, slightly larger, seats. Down from 650 now. Areas with large numbers of contiguous seats held by a single party will need to lose an MP or two, others may find their usually safe seat has suddenly become marginal - or vice versa.
The sensible wing of Labour now need to start talking seriously to the unions and potential donors for SDP2. Corbyn's going nowhere until at least 2020, when he will hand over to his appointed successor.
In the meantime there are boundary changes coming up which will necessitate everyone being deselected, and Corbyn will no doubt try and weaken further the role of the MPs in deciding the Party leadership in future.
I'm with the PM here, as he said last week at PMQs for the good of the country there needs to be a government-in-waiting sitting opposite the govt and holding them to account. It's clear that Corbyn can't do this, so they need to come together collectively and form a party that will.
Why dont they just join the Libdems. Save a lot of bother and most of them are liberals to a lesser or greater degree anyway.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
The sensible wing of Labour now need to start talking seriously to the unions and potential donors for SDP2. Corbyn's going nowhere until at least 2020, when he will hand over to his appointed successor.
In the meantime there are boundary changes coming up which will necessitate everyone being deselected, and Corbyn will no doubt try and weaken further the role of the MPs in deciding the Party leadership in future.
I'm with the PM here, as he said last week at PMQs for the good of the country there needs to be a government-in-waiting sitting opposite the govt and holding them to account. It's clear that Corbyn can't do this, so they need to come together collectively and form a party that will.
Why dont they just join the Libdems. Save a lot of bother and most of them are liberals to a lesser or greater degree anyway.
Who on earth would want to be part of something involving Farron? Even his own party members struggle to know who he is.
In the meantime there are boundary changes coming up which will necessitate everyone being deselected, and Corbyn will no doubt try and weaken further the role of the MPs in deciding the Party leadership in future.
How many seats will be affected?
All 600 of the new, slightly larger, seats. Down from 650 now. Areas with large numbers of contiguous seats held by a single party will need to lose an MP or two, others may find their usually safe seat has suddenly become marginal - or vice versa.
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
I don't understand it. The first general election I voted in was 1987, at Exeter University, and I'd guess 60-65% of the students voted.
I was excited to vote in 1979. I'd had it impressed on me that my great-grandfathers & grandfathers had all given their lives to ensure that I could vote. I felt very adult and privileged.
My first vote was in 2010 and I felt excited about it (Cleggmania!). 2015 was a lot more grudging. I think the fact that we are commenting here means we are all outside the mainstream in our attitude to voting though. Turnout has decreased across all groups, above all amongst the young, but it's not just a youth problem. One of the small slivers of good news I can take from the EU vote is the big turnout increase. I think if we changed our voting system to one that really made every vote count, we could see better turnout (not necessarily at EU ref levels - that was also motivated by the enormity of the decision and the fact that we weren't voting for cheatin' lyin' politicians).
Personally I also support compulsory voting - it should be viewed as a duty, and you have to opt-out specifically to avoid the fine. Give an option for None of the Above or just spoil your ballot if you can't bring yourself to endorse the system.
I'm against compulsory voting. If you can't be arsed to vote, then you have no right to moan. That is punishment enough for me.
Maybe I'm wildly optimistic, but part of my reason to vote Leave was to make parliament more important and accountable.
Whether that will work in practice is still opaque. If people can see that parliament matters, perhaps they'll be more inclined to get involved and vote.
In my lifetime political parties have become more and more homogenous (two cheeks, same arse). Perhaps we'll go back to a more polarised political scene, which would also help.
Once again, despite the predictable wiser-than-thou vapid grandstanding from Plato etc, I ask PBers what their strategy would be, for removing Corbyn. The rules of the Labour Party are insane, but they are nevertheless the rules, and the the PLP has to work within them. The party had banked on Corbyn observing normal constitutional protocol - indeed there is no rule in the party's constitution about a super-majority rebellion because those who wrote it assumed no leader would ever remain in post in such circumstances.
My view is clear, and has been for a while: the PLP should split, if Corbyn refused to stand down. Sad as that may be, it is now probably necessary.
Those who say "oh look at how ruthless the Tories are" need to say what Labour should do instead, given that the PCP and PLP are bound by different rules.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
An insight into what motivated them to vote en masse would be truly fascinating. I've not seen any attempt to understand this huge group.
Miss. P., I cannot speak for the majority of this group, but I have asked some questions of some of the denizens Willow Way council estate.
They live in a constituency that has always and will always elect a Conservative MP. The local council has always been and probably always been conservative controlled. Even the parish council, officially non-political, is run by the well to do types. In short their view doesn't matter and nobody gives a stuff about them.
The referendum changed that. They had, for many for the first time in their lives, a vote that counted and they, some for the first time in their lives, used it.
Yes, for the first time in ages a lot of non voters in safe seats went to vote, because it was the first time in living memory they had the opportunity to have their vote count - so they used it give the Establishment a bloody nose!
And why shouldn't they Mr. Pit. The bloke who checks the local car parks and issues tickets hasn't had a pay rise in years, what does the difference of 1.2% of modelled GDP growth over 14 years mean to him? Why should he care that some commercial property trust funds have got the colly wobbles?
Absolutely! Hopefully they will stay engaged now they've seen what voting can do. There's a massive gap about to open up as Labour commit suicide by Corbyn.
Alas, Mr. Pit, for the likes of my car park man that will be it. He had his, he is unlikely to get another in which he has a real say, a vote that actually counts. He will have a Conservative MP, a Conservative Local Council and a Parish Council run by the toffs or the rest of his life. But at least he got to have his say, just once.
Hopefully UKIP or another new party will step up and work to keep people like your car park man engaged on a local level.
At a Parliamentary level the boundary changes will reshuffle the safe seats and marginals around somewhat. This will be one of the most important days of a quite eventful Parliament!
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
In the meantime there are boundary changes coming up which will necessitate everyone being deselected, and Corbyn will no doubt try and weaken further the role of the MPs in deciding the Party leadership in future.
How many seats will be affected?
All 600 of the new, slightly larger, seats. Down from 650 now. Areas with large numbers of contiguous seats held by a single party will need to lose an MP or two, others may find their usually safe seat has suddenly become marginal - or vice versa.
Oooh!
Every sitting MP having to reapply. I like it!
One of the first things May has to do in her honeymoon is get the 600 seats through.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.
It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
I still fell sorry for her after the Sofa Incident
I can honestly say that I've only arghed a pet for a horrific wine crime once. A whole bottle of juicy red met a greyhound happy tail and splattered all over my pale green Chinese rug.
I tried everything - but a tell-tale pale purple menace remained right in the middle. Hansel was such a wonderful doggy that all his misdemeanours were quickly forgotten.
Sure - but this was tyson blaming Trotsky for the mess that he made...!
Hansel was straight and voted Tory.
His brother Sampson was gay and also voted Tory. I'm not sure tyson could cope. My top cat Chekov also has O level French Poetry. He's an intellectual.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
The sensible wing of Labour now need to start talking seriously to the unions and potential donors for SDP2. Corbyn's going nowhere until at least 2020, when he will hand over to his appointed successor.
In the meantime there are boundary changes coming up which will necessitate everyone being deselected, and Corbyn will no doubt try and weaken further the role of the MPs in deciding the Party leadership in future.
I'm with the PM here, as he said last week at PMQs for the good of the country there needs to be a government-in-waiting sitting opposite the govt and holding them to account. It's clear that Corbyn can't do this, so they need to come together collectively and form a party that will.
An excellent intelligent post by one of Labour's opponents who nevertheless has the brains and mental capacity to consider their situation in a practical way.
Once again, despite the predictable wiser-than-thou vapid grandstanding from Plato etc, I ask PBers what their strategy would be, for removing Corbyn. The rules of the Labour Party are insane, but they are nevertheless the rules, and the the PLP has to work within them. The party had banked on Corbyn observing normal constitutional protocol - indeed there is no rule in the party's constitution about a super-majority rebellion because those who wrote it assumed no leader would ever remain in post in such circumstances.
My view is clear, and has been for a while: the PLP should split, if Corbyn refused to stand down. Sad as that may be, it is now probably necessary.
Those who say "oh look at how ruthless the Tories are" need to say what Labour should do instead, given that the PCP and PLP are bound by different rules.
You can't. I believe it was Miliband that changed the system such that Labour have created their very own Kobayashi Maru.
Corbyn is an unforseen edge case. I agree that a split seems inevitable.
Once again, despite the predictable wiser-than-thou vapid grandstanding from Plato etc, I ask PBers what their strategy would be, for removing Corbyn. The rules of the Labour Party are insane, but they are nevertheless the rules, and the the PLP has to work within them. The party had banked on Corbyn observing normal constitutional protocol - indeed there is no rule in the party's constitution about a super-majority rebellion because those who wrote it assumed no leader would ever remain in post in such circumstances.
My view is clear, and has been for a while: the PLP should split, if Corbyn refused to stand down. Sad as that may be, it is now probably necessary.
Those who say "oh look at how ruthless the Tories are" need to say what Labour should do instead, given that the PCP and PLP are bound by different rules.
Talk to the likes od John Mills, Adil Nasir and other major donors and begin planning a split. It's the only way to get away from the insane far left. Have proper rules about leadership and then start to try and woo the sane unions for affiliation and begin to act as real Labour. Don't forget that if you are the major party after the split then you'll be the main opposition party.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
I don't understand it. The first general election I voted in was 1987, at Exeter University, and I'd guess 60-65% of the students voted.
I was excited to vote in 1979. I'd had it impressed on me that my great-grandfathers & grandfathers had all given their lives to ensure that I could vote. I felt very adult and privileged.
My first vote was in 2010 and I felt excited about it (Cleggmania!). 2015 was a lot more grudging. I think the fact that we are commenting here means we are all outside the mainstream in our attitude to voting though. Turnout has decreased across all groups, above all amongst the young, but it's not just a youth problem. One of the small slivers of good news I can take from the EU vote is the big turnout increase. I think if we changed our voting system to one that really made every vote count, we could see better turnout (not necessarily at EU ref levels - that was also motivated by the enormity of the decision and the fact that we weren't voting for cheatin' lyin' politicians).
Personally I also support compulsory voting - it should be viewed as a duty, and you have to opt-out specifically to avoid the fine. Give an option for None of the Above or just spoil your ballot if you can't bring yourself to endorse the system.
A compulsory duty?
Umm. I disagree re compulsion on almost everything bar H&S.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
After the front bench fiasco there were only 2 options - put up and shut up or go and form a new party.
I called it as a desperate, hopeless bluff over a week ago...
You are rarely incorrect.
What would you do instead, were you the PLP?
Make Corbyn's time as leader impossible. Work-to-rule on steroids. Come out on strike when necessary.
If every non-Corbynite worked together they could refuse to vote, not attend meetings, etc.
The Labour party was founded by unions helping working people stand together against bad management. If MPs cannot see what they need to do, then the Labour party really is finished.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
One positive of the referendum is that every vote counted. This simply isn't the case for GEs
In PR systems that we use for European, Scottish and Welsh elections we get lower turnouts than in Westminster. People do not bother because they do not care, rather than anything more substantial, just as turnout is as high in safe seats as marginals.
HL's car park attendant will still have a crap job and prospects.
@John_M Had a refurb done last year, kitchen, study, utility room. All new woodwork. Day after the workmen had departed, Yorkiepoos (Molly & Rosie) had chewed every piece of skirting board, stair paneling and pillar. Their death sentences were commuted to hugs.
Once again, despite the predictable wiser-than-thou vapid grandstanding from Plato etc, I ask PBers what their strategy would be, for removing Corbyn. The rules of the Labour Party are insane, but they are nevertheless the rules, and the the PLP has to work within them. The party had banked on Corbyn observing normal constitutional protocol - indeed there is no rule in the party's constitution about a super-majority rebellion because those who wrote it assumed no leader would ever remain in post in such circumstances.
My view is clear, and has been for a while: the PLP should split, if Corbyn refused to stand down. Sad as that may be, it is now probably necessary.
Those who say "oh look at how ruthless the Tories are" need to say what Labour should do instead, given that the PCP and PLP are bound by different rules.
Talk to the likes od John Mills, Adil Nasir and other major donors and begin planning a split. It's the only way to get away from the insane far left. Have proper rules about leadership and then start to try and woo the sane unions for affiliation and begin to act as real Labour. Don't forget that if you are the major party after the split then you'll be the main opposition party.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
After the front bench fiasco there were only 2 options - put up and shut up or go and form a new party.
I called it as a desperate, hopeless bluff over a week ago...
You are rarely incorrect.
What would you do instead, were you the PLP?
I think splitting is the only option. But, I'm not sure that it would help them.
I think there is scope for a centrist pro-EU party, comprising most Labour, the Lib Dems, and some Conservatives, but the danger is they'd win a string of 25-35% vote shares, but still lose almost everywhere to the remaining Labour and Conservative Parties.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
After the front bench fiasco there were only 2 options - put up and shut up or go and form a new party.
I called it as a desperate, hopeless bluff over a week ago...
You are rarely incorrect.
What would you do instead, were you the PLP?
Tom Watson if he had the guts should have run. He was elected by the members and could have potentially stood a chance.
Quite what they were thinking with Eagle I do not know.
Then follow @MaxPB plan in the post below if it fails.
Eagle as a solution shows they really don't know the questions they need to be asking.
She is a classic example of affirmative action gone wrong. No discernible skill or ability, yet promoted time and again.
The suggestion that she is a viable leader comes from the Left's need to be seen to be doing the right-on thing. A woman - how very progressive of us. A lesbian as well? Even better - more boxes ticked. What do you mean she isn't very able? Doesn't matter - look how progressive we are in considering her.
@John_M Had a refurb done last year, kitchen, study, utility room. All new woodwork. Day after the workmen had departed, Yorkiepoos (Molly & Rosie) had chewed every piece of skirting board, stair paneling and pillar. Their death sentences were commuted to hugs.
Ya big softy
Guilty as charged .
I'm pro-Yorkiepoo and pro- other people having them. Blair would have never invaded Iraq, had he been bathed in the love of a Yorkiepoo. Brown would have been a better chancellor. Never mind owls, Miliband should have....you get the drift.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
I still fell sorry for her after the Sofa Incident
I can honestly say that I've only arghed a pet for a horrific wine crime once. A whole bottle of juicy red met a greyhound happy tail and splattered all over my pale green Chinese rug.
I tried everything - but a tell-tale pale purple menace remained right in the middle. Hansel was such a wonderful doggy that all his misdemeanours were quickly forgotten.
Had a refurb done last year, kitchen, study, utility room. All new woodwork. Day after the workmen had departed, Yorkiepoos (Molly & Rosie) had chewed every piece of skirting board, stair paneling and pillar. Their death sentences were commuted to hugs.
One of my greyhounds - Delilah nibbled all my antique furniture and only one of every pair of shoes.
She also stole my laundered undies and left them all over the garden. I kept finding them posted through the letter box and thinking WTF. My gardener explained and hoped I didn't think he was some weirdo knicker fiend.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
I don't understand it. The first general election I voted in was 1987, at Exeter University, and I'd guess 60-65% of the students voted.
I was excited to vote in 1979. I'd had it impressed on me that my great-grandfathers & grandfathers had all given their lives to ensure that I could vote. I felt very adult and privileged.
My first vote was in 2010 and I felt excited about it (Cleggmania!). 2015 was a lot more grudging. I think the fact that we are commenting here means we are all outside the mainstream in our attitude to voting though. Turnout has decreased across all groups, above all amongst the young, but it's not just a youth problem. One of the small slivers of good news I can take from the EU vote is the big turnout increase. I think if we changed our voting system to one that really made every vote count, we could see better turnout (not necessarily at EU ref levels - that was also motivated by the enormity of the decision and the fact that we weren't voting for cheatin' lyin' politicians).
Personally I also support compulsory voting - it should be viewed as a duty, and you have to opt-out specifically to avoid the fine. Give an option for None of the Above or just spoil your ballot if you can't bring yourself to endorse the system.
A compulsory duty?
Umm. I disagree re compulsion on almost everything bar H&S.
Jury duty is compulsory. An opt-out system works for those who don't want to be compelled to vote. There are many things we are obligated to do in the UK whether we like it or not, paying taxes, jury duty etc, no reason voting shouldn't be seen along those lines as well.
FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
.
TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.
A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?
I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname. Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
Why've you named one of your boys after @tyson 's dog?
Tyson's dog is also a girl. She's oppressed.
I still fell sorry for her after the Sofa Incident
I can honestly say that I've only arghed a pet for a horrific wine crime once. A whole bottle of juicy red met a greyhound happy tail and splattered all over my pale green Chinese rug.
I tried everything - but a tell-tale pale purple menace remained right in the middle. Hansel was such a wonderful doggy that all his misdemeanours were quickly forgotten.
Had a refurb done last year, kitchen, study, utility room. All new woodwork. Day after the workmen had departed, Yorkiepoos (Molly & Rosie) had chewed every piece of skirting board, stair paneling and pillar. Their death sentences were commuted to hugs.
One of my greyhounds - Delilah nibbled all my antique furniture and only one of every pair of shoes.
She also stole my laundered undies and left them all over the garden. I kept finding them posted through the letter box and thinking WTF. My gardener explained and hoped I didn't think he was some weirdo knicker fiend.
One positive of the referendum is that every vote counted. This simply isn't the case for GEs
Yes it is. Every vote counts the same and if enough people agree with you, your candidate wins.
I don't understand from where has come this bizarre idea that there's some sort of right to vote for a winner.
If every vote counts in a GE, then there is an extraordinary circumstance upon the country. The only example I can think of is the GE in Scotland in 2015. That simply isn't typical and a landslide simply must be happening if "every vote" is counting.
'My view is clear, and has been for a while: the PLP should split, if Corbyn refused to stand down. Sad as that may be, it is now probably necessary.
Those who say "oh look at how ruthless the Tories are" need to say what Labour should do instead, given that the PCP and PLP are bound by different rules. '
Corbyn should have been challenged to a leadership contest,not a single MP had the spine to do it, unbelievable.
Maybe Corbyn would have still won,but at least the effort would have been made,now the MPs bluff has been called and they look pathetic.Presumably the more employable right of centre MPs will give up and seek a career elsewhere.
The trick, and it will be a hard one, is to carry the Unions. They have the funding and the ability to drag bodies. Without that, Labour 2.0 will be doomed. The consolidation of the unions makes it harder but potentially more effective in that the wooees are a smaller number. They have to be tempted by power and rationality: the Corbynite workers collective will actually be bad for their members. If that's impossible, give up, join the Conservatives and drag it to the centre. A Japan style LDP hegemony is not terribly appealing or useful for good government but we do appear to be heading that way.
Exception: hold on until the Conservative leadership election is over. If Leadsom or Gove become leader then the Labour Party will still be a prize worth fighting for.
Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.
One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.
After the front bench fiasco there were only 2 options - put up and shut up or go and form a new party.
I called it as a desperate, hopeless bluff over a week ago...
You are rarely incorrect.
What would you do instead, were you the PLP?
I think splitting is the only option. But, I'm not sure that it would help them.
I think there is scope for a centrist pro-EU party, comprising most Labour, the Lib Dems, and some Conservatives, but the danger is they'd win a string of 25-35% vote shares, but still lose almost everywhere to the remaining Labour and Conservative Parties.
A new party is only likely to get traction as a personality driven vehicle for a figurehead with something distinctive to offer - a British version of Trump in form if not content.
Once again, despite the predictable wiser-than-thou vapid grandstanding from Plato etc, I ask PBers what their strategy would be, for removing Corbyn. The rules of the Labour Party are insane, but they are nevertheless the rules, and the the PLP has to work within them. The party had banked on Corbyn observing normal constitutional protocol - indeed there is no rule in the party's constitution about a super-majority rebellion because those who wrote it assumed no leader would ever remain in post in such circumstances.
My view is clear, and has been for a while: the PLP should split, if Corbyn refused to stand down. Sad as that may be, it is now probably necessary.
Those who say "oh look at how ruthless the Tories are" need to say what Labour should do instead, given that the PCP and PLP are bound by different rules.
Talk to the likes od John Mills, Adil Nasir and other major donors and begin planning a split. It's the only way to get away from the insane far left. Have proper rules about leadership and then start to try and woo the sane unions for affiliation and begin to act as real Labour. Don't forget that if you are the major party after the split then you'll be the main opposition party.
A good post. Thanks Max.
While Labour being destroyed by Corbyn is funny to me, I do think it's about time we had a proper opposition. School is going to be in session after the summer break and we need a strong centre left voice to represent the other half of the country in the EU negotiations. We need to make sure that we have a cross party, cross political settlement for such a huge question. Corbyn brings nothing to the table, and he doesn't warrant a seat at it. We need Labour or whichever party wants to replace them to get their act together for the sake of the nation.
Comments
After the front bench fiasco there were only 2 options - put up and shut up or go and form a new party.
I can't get over how totally useless they are. Over a hundred have huffed off - and Corbyn is still there.
It's remarkable. I mentioned a few threads ago a chappy I worked with. He'd spent several yrs at Her Majesty's Pleasure for tax fraud. He was shameless - the conventional rules didn't apply. He was unmanageable.
His IQ and charm were 100x that of Corbyn - but the same traits apply.
Even before 2001, but especially after, Brown and his cronies were doing all they could to both undermine Blair and destroy any potential rivals for the leadership. They were doing the opposition's job for them in attacking their own side.
Thanks to that, the best Labour could bring forward when Brown finally fell in 2010 were the Miliband brothers. An entire generation of would-be leaders had been seen off by Brown's ambition and bullying.
Blair's decision in 2001 not to replace Brown at the treasury (as I think he wanted to do) was fairly catastrophic, especially for the Labour party.
"A flashpoint also developed between Gove and Johnson over whether Boris should give George Osborne a top job in his Cabinet.
As the Chancellor’s old friend, Mr Gove was desperate to bring him on board their operation and bombarded Mr Osborne with texts and calls last weekend."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1371058/inside-story-of-tories-borexit-how-bojos-career-was-left-in-tatters-a-week-after-he-thought-hed-be-next-pm/
Now it appears Corbyn is safe, and the rest of the PLP are too spineless to either challenge or split, there's a massive opportunity for UKIP under a working-class leader to pick up dramatic numbers of votes in the next election if they can reach out to these disaffected people and have them continue to vote.
There's also some thought to be done on the system that elects MPs, but it needs to be done carefully, probably under a Royal Commission, to ensure that any changes are not made purely for party political advantage, and that a strong local independent can still make it to Parliament.
And I think the 2010-15 Gov't will be looked on well - coalitions are not neccessarily a bad thing.
It was just a motion wasnt it. Dosent change anything.
This is the real world now. Lefty virtue signalling is just glorifying their weakness of resolve.
Perhaps now that parliament will be re-aquiring real power we will start to get politicians who stand up for the countries interest not wave their virtue like a shroud in the way that powerless student union activists do.
This leaves the sane party supporters and MPs with a rather existential problem.
And let's not forget the feeling of joy and sense of pride one gets from living in a safe seat of ones own party. Not really a wasted vote then either. (I'm moving to Surrey East in the next few weeks and can't wait to be living somewhere with a 20k+ Tory majority.)
I'd be open to changing the rules slightly so that electors can pick which constituency they vote in - either where they live, where they work, or somewhere else they have a provable connection. But you can only change once every electoral cycle. Could help out the Boundary Commission if people signaled their preferred constituency ahead of each review.
If you read political memoirs though, it's clear that he and his team were already undermining Blair and others.
Conservatives: House of Cards
Labour: House of Chaos
#AllDogsMatter
Now, I really mean it. Look at our parties. Look at the country. Look at Europe.
Strange days. Weird times.
Colonel William Sharp: [In response to Rockhound riding the nuclear warhead] Get off... the nuclear... warhead.
Rockhound: I was doing that guy from that movie, you know, Slim Pickens, where he rides it all the way in, the nuclear warhead.
Colonel William Sharp: Now.
Rockhound: Oh, you didn't see that one, huh?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fyXmT1j6lQ
How dare you suggest some hierarchy of authority, some master-slave relationship!
She is a free partner who merely chooses to co-exist temporarily in a similar physical location to @tyson
I tried everything - but a tell-tale pale purple menace remained right in the middle. Hansel was such a wonderful doggy that all his misdemeanours were quickly forgotten.
In the meantime there are boundary changes coming up which will necessitate everyone being deselected, and Corbyn will no doubt try and weaken further the role of the MPs in deciding the Party leadership in future.
I'm with the PM here, as he said last week at PMQs for the good of the country there needs to be a government-in-waiting sitting opposite the govt and holding them to account. It's clear that Corbyn can't do this, so they need to come together collectively and form a party that will.
Personally I also support compulsory voting - it should be viewed as a duty, and you have to opt-out specifically to avoid the fine. Give an option for None of the Above or just spoil your ballot if you can't bring yourself to endorse the system.
We open doors and windows at their will, occupy 10% of the bed space as they stretch out, and put off going for a wee when they're pretending to be asleep on our laps.
We all know who's in charge here.
Every sitting MP having to reapply. I like it!
Whether that will work in practice is still opaque. If people can see that parliament matters, perhaps they'll be more inclined to get involved and vote.
In my lifetime political parties have become more and more homogenous (two cheeks, same arse). Perhaps we'll go back to a more polarised political scene, which would also help.
My view is clear, and has been for a while: the PLP should split, if Corbyn refused to stand down. Sad as that may be, it is now probably necessary.
Those who say "oh look at how ruthless the Tories are" need to say what Labour should do instead, given that the PCP and PLP are bound by different rules.
At a Parliamentary level the boundary changes will reshuffle the safe seats and marginals around somewhat. This will be one of the most important days of a quite eventful Parliament!
His brother Sampson was gay and also voted Tory. I'm not sure tyson could cope. My top cat Chekov also has O level French Poetry. He's an intellectual.
It's amazing what aspiration can do.
Corbyn is an unforseen edge case. I agree that a split seems inevitable.
Quite what they were thinking with Eagle I do not know.
Then follow @MaxPB plan in the post below if it fails.
Umm. I disagree re compulsion on almost everything bar H&S.
Make Corbyn's time as leader impossible. Work-to-rule on steroids. Come out on strike when necessary.
If every non-Corbynite worked together they could refuse to vote, not attend meetings, etc.
The Labour party was founded by unions helping working people stand together against bad management. If MPs cannot see what they need to do, then the Labour party really is finished.
HL's car park attendant will still have a crap job and prospects.
Ya big softy
I don't understand from where has come this bizarre idea that there's some sort of right to vote for a winner.
I think there is scope for a centrist pro-EU party, comprising most Labour, the Lib Dems, and some Conservatives, but the danger is they'd win a string of 25-35% vote shares, but still lose almost everywhere to the remaining Labour and Conservative Parties.
She is a classic example of affirmative action gone wrong. No discernible skill or ability, yet promoted time and again.
The suggestion that she is a viable leader comes from the Left's need to be seen to be doing the right-on thing. A woman - how very progressive of us. A lesbian as well? Even better - more boxes ticked. What do you mean she isn't very able? Doesn't matter - look how progressive we are in considering her.
Weak, weak, weak.
I'm pro-Yorkiepoo and pro- other people having them. Blair would have never invaded Iraq, had he been bathed in the love of a Yorkiepoo. Brown would have been a better chancellor. Never mind owls, Miliband should have....you get the drift.
She also stole my laundered undies and left them all over the garden. I kept finding them posted through the letter box and thinking WTF. My gardener explained and hoped I didn't think he was some weirdo knicker fiend.
< /sarcasm >
Still inexplicably 9.8 third favourite on Betfair, does anyone know why?
'My view is clear, and has been for a while: the PLP should split, if Corbyn refused to stand down. Sad as that may be, it is now probably necessary.
Those who say "oh look at how ruthless the Tories are" need to say what Labour should do instead, given that the PCP and PLP are bound by different rules. '
Corbyn should have been challenged to a leadership contest,not a single MP had the spine to do it, unbelievable.
Maybe Corbyn would have still won,but at least the effort would have been made,now the MPs bluff has been called and they look pathetic.Presumably the more employable right of centre MPs will give up and seek a career elsewhere.
The trick, and it will be a hard one, is to carry the Unions. They have the funding and the ability to drag bodies. Without that, Labour 2.0 will be doomed. The consolidation of the unions makes it harder but potentially more effective in that the wooees are a smaller number. They have to be tempted by power and rationality: the Corbynite workers collective will actually be bad for their members. If that's impossible, give up, join the Conservatives and drag it to the centre. A Japan style LDP hegemony is not terribly appealing or useful for good government but we do appear to be heading that way.
Exception: hold on until the Conservative leadership election is over. If Leadsom or Gove become leader then the Labour Party will still be a prize worth fighting for.