This is good for Jo Swinson but (depending on the dates) might be more about being on telly at the conference than the policy: Bollocks to Brexit was not coined last week. Labour's attack on private schools might also be a factor. Let us see if it outlasts the conference season.
Boris, Cummings and CCHQ will no doubt be commissioning more detailed private polls to work out where the LibDem resurgence threatens Tory or Labour constituencies. This might be crucial in a snap election.
Can somebody please give me a moral reasoning for the existence of private schools?
They seem to be the polar opposite of meritocratic, same as inheritance tax I guess.
Away you jealous halfwit, if someone wants to send their children to private school for whatever reason that is their choice. Arseholes like you should not be able to tell people what to do with their money. Get a job and get your own kids a better education than you appear to have had.
A nuanced response, malcolm.
Nice one, Malc. He is, of course, right. Are we really saying that we would prefer parents with the means to spend their money on Range Rovers, fancy holidays, etc, rather than on their children's education. Seriously? Ban private schools but keep Lamborghini ownership legal?
They have not "decided to stand candidates" until the form goes in. It's a fluid situation and negotations are going on. Selecting a PPC means they're prepared if the negotiations don't bear fruit... but doesn't necessarily mean they'll actually fight the seat.
I'm not going by a tweet and I know the LibDems involved - they certainly think they're standing and there are no negotiations that they're aware of.
I'll defer to your greater knowledge! But nonetheless the point stands - everything could change until the forms go in.
(Or even afterwards: locally the LDs put up a candidate for county council and then said "actually, vote Green" on the first day of campaigning, which got them some column inches. Still didn't get the seat, mind, but the Labour victor is a top bloke and not far off the social democrat wing of the LDs so no harm done.)
Slightly OT, but I wonder if the much-discussed tweet about Lib Dems cancelling their Canterbury selection was not to do with the Labour incumbent defecting, but rather finding a winnable seat for Sam Gyimah?
LDs got 8% in 2017. Canterbury is not a winnable search for them
Who knows. Flavible has them taking it, for all that any seat predictor has any value these days. Flavible does at least seem to put some effort into demographics and attitudes, which Electoral Calculus really doesn't. But you might as well pin a tail on a donkey.
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.
They have not "decided to stand candidates" until the form goes in. It's a fluid situation and negotations are going on. Selecting a PPC means they're prepared if the negotiations don't bear fruit... but doesn't necessarily mean they'll actually fight the seat.
I'm not going by a tweet and I know the LibDems involved - they certainly think they're standing and there are no negotiations that they're aware of.
I'll defer to your greater knowledge! But nonetheless the point stands - everything could change until the forms go in.
(Or even afterwards: locally the LDs put up a candidate for county council and then said "actually, vote Green" on the first day of campaigning, which got them some column inches. Still didn't get the seat, mind, but the Labour victor is a top bloke and not far off the social democrat wing of the LDs so no harm done.)
Slightly OT, but I wonder if the much-discussed tweet about Lib Dems cancelling their Canterbury selection was not to do with the Labour incumbent defecting, but rather finding a winnable seat for Sam Gyimah?
LDs got 8% in 2017. Canterbury is not a winnable search for them
Who knows. Flavible has them taking it, for all that any seat predictor has any value these days. But you might as well pin a tail on a donkey.
I am generally no fan of Kuenssberg. However in this case I think her actions were proper taken as a whole. She tweeted the opinion of the person who angrily confronted Johnson at a hospital in the news story of the day. She tweeted her observation (which I think most will share) to the effect that Johnson didn't know how to respond. When it came to light that the person was a Corbyn-supporting Labour activist, she tweeted that too.
I would wish to know all of those facts before forming an opinion on the matter so I think she has done a reasonable job of reporting them.
I think this is all true, but at the same time people with 1,000,000+ followers on Twitter need to consider that every time they directly @ someone they are potentially aiming a large cannon of abuse at that individual. She could have said all of the above without specifically calling out the individual in question who right now must be going through an extremely stressful time as it is having a young child in hospital with (by all accounts) an extremely serious condition.
The fact that someone may have shared their experience with their own small circle of followers doesn’t mean that they have consented to you bringing down a river of shit on their heads.
I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
Did LK and the other journalists do the identifying - or did someone tell them? I find it really hard to believe that their instinctive reaction to the exchange was to go to Twitter to try to find out who Omar was. But I can see why the instinctive reaction of others would have been to do just that and to then have let journalists know.
They have not "decided to stand candidates" until the form goes in. It's a fluid situation and negotations are going on. Selecting a PPC means they're prepared if the negotiations don't bear fruit... but doesn't necessarily mean they'll actually fight the seat.
I'm not going by a tweet and I know the LibDems involved - they certainly think they're standing and there are no negotiations that they're aware of.
I'll defer to your greater knowledge! But nonetheless the point stands - everything could change until the forms go in.
(Or even afterwards: locally the LDs put up a candidate for county council and then said "actually, vote Green" on the first day of campaigning, which got them some column inches. Still didn't get the seat, mind, but the Labour victor is a top bloke and not far off the social democrat wing of the LDs so no harm done.)
Slightly OT, but I wonder if the much-discussed tweet about Lib Dems cancelling their Canterbury selection was not to do with the Labour incumbent defecting, but rather finding a winnable seat for Sam Gyimah?
LDs got 8% in 2017. Canterbury is not a winnable search for them
Who knows. Flavible has them taking it, for all that any seat predictor has any value these days. Flavible does at least seem to put some effort into demographics and attitudes, which Electoral Calculus really doesn't. But you might as well pin a tail on a donkey.
Both the Tories and labour are in the mid 40s, LD would need a 20% swing against both parties, any model showing it as a LD gain can and should be binned.
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!
I am generally no fan of Kuenssberg. However in this case I think her actions were proper taken as a whole. She tweeted the opinion of the person who angrily confronted Johnson at a hospital in the news story of the day. She tweeted her observation (which I think most will share) to the effect that Johnson didn't know how to respond. When it came to light that the person was a Corbyn-supporting Labour activist, she tweeted that too.
I would wish to know all of those facts before forming an opinion on the matter so I think she has done a reasonable job of reporting them.
I think this is all true, but at the same time people with 1,000,000+ followers on Twitter need to consider that every time they directly @ someone they are potentially aiming a large cannon of abuse at that individual. She could have said all of the above without specifically calling out the individual in question who right now must be going through an extremely stressful time as it is having a young child in hospital with (by all accounts) an extremely serious condition.
The fact that someone may have shared their experience with their own small circle of followers doesn’t mean that they have consented to you bringing down a river of shit on their heads.
Pretty sure if someone starts an angry rant at the PM then they know they will be in the papers tomorrow. Most normal folk are not on twitter, let alone have 13k followers. It seems fair the public know who this person is and I'm glad journalists are giving the public transparency in this case.
Here’s a reasonably high-res video of the Labour activist who confronted (& was lied to his face by) Johnson yesterday. Can anyone show me this supposed microphone (with a link to the actual product please)? Because I’m not seeing it. https://twitter.com/gully_burrows/status/1174283589040713728
Right at the end when the chap is being led away with his back to the camera, is he wearing a mic pack on his belt, or is that just his belt?
btw this is all a distraction from whether the PM blatantly lied for no apparent reason.
NB. If you go to Twitter itself, you can full-screen the video & get a very clear image. I really cannot see anything on his belt.
As others have said, this smells like a smokescreen of chaff put up in order to distract from the fact that Johnson lied like a rug when confronted. It’s bizarre behaviour & suggests that he falls apart under scrutiny - can’t possibly bode well for any election campaign.
I imagine the campaign team will be desperate to keep Jonson away from any kind of hard questioning during the forthcoming election, but keeping that up for an entire campaign seems like a tall order.
Boris has made a career of ducking questions, as Mayor, as candidate for the Conservative leadership, and proroguing parliament means he has ducked PMQs as well. His problem is that answering awkward questions is a learned skill and he's never bothered to learn it, hence yesterday's nonsense.
No doubt the next election will be like the last one with the PM hiding away and refusing debates and interviews, with the odd speech to carefully screened Tory activists behind locked doors.
I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.
As for Laura K identifying him, perhaps she should have thought twice about it, though as @Brom points out, he himself did Tweet about it so I'd suggest that makes it fair game.
Having said that, I do think those people/organisations with a lot of followers should think carefully about their actions. In November 2017, Arsenal Tweeted journalist Adam Crafton after they defeated Spurs 2-0. When asked to pick a combined Arsenal/Spurs team in the week before the game, Crafton had picked the Spurs XI (I would have done too!). He received a lot of abuse after this. I don't use Twitter myself, and I guess it's easy to block abusive posters, but he was inundated with it after this and that must have been annoying if not distressing:
I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
Did LK and the other journalists do the identifying - or did someone tell them? I find it really hard to believe that their instinctive reaction to the exchange was to go to Twitter to try to find out who Omar was. But I can see why the instinctive reaction of others would have been to do just that and to then have let journalists know.
Not to pick your discussion in particular, but putting the discussion re LK's tweet stuff into context ...
Trudeau. Lol. I think by the millennium we knew the black and white minstrels were racist bucko. I wonder if he put on a funny accent too, the naughty little noodle. I love it when these super woke pricks turn out to be full of wind and piss
His apology seems to show that at the time he was in a pre-woke state of unaware ness. A bit like Harry was. Some personal moral growth is a good thing surely?
If it were simply a case of a little moral growth then sure, but it's not. It's the usual hypocrisy and the oh so earnest apology when they get caught. And his 'we know better now' shtick is so much bilge, the world's moral centre doesn't evolve with St Justin. Not all superheroes wear capes, but none of them brown up.
Hypocrisy or not (and I tend to your view on that), the apology at the very least recognises blackface as wrong and unacceptable.
And I doubt many in the UK hold Trudeau as a saint. I certainly don't.
Trudeau deserves to be attacked for this, but oh my. Trudeau is to the right what Kuenssberg is to the left. Utterly irrational levels of fury for people who otherwise don't give two hoots about Canadian politics. I have never understood why he winds them up so much.
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out.
I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
Did LK and the other journalists do the identifying - or did someone tell them? I find it really hard to believe that their instinctive reaction to the exchange was to go to Twitter to try to find out who Omar was. But I can see why the instinctive reaction of others would have been to do just that and to then have let journalists know.
The journalists who, according to Boris, weren't there, could easily have asked him. And twitter research is a journalistic staple these days: slow news day, see what's trending. Television programme the proprietor dislikes, search its hashtag on twitter and quote any complaints you find (there are always some).
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out.
I think you might be overrating our Laura!!
I'm sorry that she's not up to the high journalistic standards you've come to expect at The New European
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.
According to the latest UK-Elect Beta version (taking account of Brexit-based local conditions, tactical voting etc.) that YouGov poll would lead to another hung parliament: Con 305, Lab 185, LibDem 82, SNP 51
Which should also lead to PR as that outcome would be pretty outrageous vis a vis relative voting share.
Once Labour realises it can never win again under FPTP, PR is inevitable.
If anyone wants to for a government with Lib Der support, that is also likely true.
I don't think they would be fobbed off with a few ministerial cars and a referendum on AV next time around.
It can't be done in a hurry. Decisions need to be made, such as the mechanism for making it proportional... open lists? Regions a la Holyrood? Does the electoral commission need to be involved? It's urgent, but it should be done well, which means taking our time about it. Start now though.
No need to overthink it, just pick a Scandanavian country and use their system, they're all pretty good
150 four member constituencies elected by STV the only issue is to sort out the boundaries.
You keep the notion of current contituencies but aglommerate neighbouring constituencies into blocks of 4s, making 162 Blocks. The speaker and deputy speaker's contituencies would be in blocks of 5 constituencies. This solves the problem of citizens in the Speaker's constituency not getting an effective vote.
If and when the Speaker and Deputy Speaker change then a few of the blocks would have boundary changes but still observing the constituency boundaries.
The block assignment could be done in no time at all, then there might be a couple of practical problems with the initial assignment which needs to be tweaked. Sorted before lunch.
We then spend the next six months arguing over a nicer name for "block".
On the basis of UNS , the Tories would gain 39 seats from Labour but lose 19 to the LDs and circa 10 to the SNP to give a total of 327 - ie a bare majority of 4 and smaller than Cameron managed in 2015. Labour would also lose 5 to the LDs and 6 to SNP to leave them with 212. The LDs would end up on 36 - 38 seats - though some of the gains projected from Labour appear unlikely given that Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland are not standing again.
It can't be done in a hurry. Decisions need to be made, such as the mechanism for making it proportional... open lists? Regions a la Holyrood? Does the electoral commission need to be involved? It's urgent, but it should be done well, which means taking our time about it. Start now though.
No need to overthink it, just pick a Scandanavian country and use their system, they're all pretty good
Aren't the Swedes still trying to figure out how to set up their ballot system so no-one can tell who you've voted for?
While I agree that's not strictly integral to the voting system (albeit the number of ballot papers they need to print off is staggering), I would argue that it's incompatible with a categorisation of "pretty good".
I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.
I think there is doubt. Given that he included the hospital in his tweet, anyone searching for tweets related to the hospital would have found his tweet - generally the point of twitter is that it is a public platform.
I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.
As for Laura K identifying him, perhaps she should have thought twice about it, though as @Brom points out, he himself did Tweet about it so I'd suggest that makes it fair game.
Having said that, I do think those people/organisations with a lot of followers should think carefully about their actions. In November 2017, Arsenal Tweeted journalist Adam Crafton after they defeated Spurs 2-0. When asked to pick a combined Arsenal/Spurs team in the week before the game, Crafton had picked the Spurs XI (I would have done too!). He received a lot of abuse after this. I don't use Twitter myself, and I guess it's easy to block abusive posters, but he was inundated with it after this and that must have been annoying if not distressing:
I agree that people with large twitter followings should be careful on who they direct their tweets at (J.K.Rowling is a case in point). Perhaps the real take away from this is that higher profile journos now see twitter as a platform for news reporting rather than a resource/accessory to it.
I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
Particularly if you are tweeting about it yourself and wish to put yourself above the parapet. Surely the fact he has worked for Thornberry and is a Labour activist is relevant, people are capable of making their own judgements based on the information and I'm sure he has many grievances with the NHS.
It's just very sad that the usual extreme nutjobs like Rachel Swindon, James Felton etc do what they do best and create outrage over Laura K's perfectly normal tweet. These people just won't be happy until all journalists parrot their own views. Dangerous times.
Maybe they think she's Jewish because of the "berg", or confused her with Rachel Riley
I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.
I think there is doubt. Given that he included the hospital in his tweet, anyone searching for tweets related to the hospital would have found his tweet - generally the point of twitter is that it is a public platform.
Well, even less of an issue if it was he himself who gave it away.
As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.
I think it's a long term strategic error, possibly a game-losing one. It's probably excellent short term strategy, though. Given where the Lib Dems are now, it's probably worth a gamble.
I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.
I think there is doubt. Given that he included the hospital in his tweet, anyone searching for tweets related to the hospital would have found his tweet - generally the point of twitter is that it is a public platform.
There is, of course, the point that journalists with many thousands of followers are far more aware of the ramifications of being in the public gaze on Twitter than some bloke with a handful of followers.
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.
But the people tweeting abuse to Laura Kuenssberg have already admitted on here they are biased, so of course they treat the same behaviour differently depending on who did it and the side they're on
It can't be done in a hurry. Decisions need to be made, such as the mechanism for making it proportional... open lists? Regions a la Holyrood? Does the electoral commission need to be involved? It's urgent, but it should be done well, which means taking our time about it. Start now though.
No need to overthink it, just pick a Scandanavian country and use their system, they're all pretty good
150 four member constituencies elected by STV the only issue is to sort out the boundaries.
You keep the notion of current contituencies but aglommerate neighbouring constituencies into blocks of 4s, making 162 Blocks. The speaker and deputy speaker's contituencies would be in blocks of 5 constituencies. This solves the problem of citizens in the Speaker's constituency not getting an effective vote.
If and when the Speaker and Deputy Speaker change then a few of the blocks would have boundary changes but still observing the constituency boundaries.
The block assignment could be done in no time at all, then there might be a couple of practical problems with the initial assignment which needs to be tweaked. Sorted before lunch.
We then spend the next six months arguing over a nicer name for "block".
According to the latest UK-Elect Beta version (taking account of Brexit-based local conditions, tactical voting etc.) that YouGov poll would lead to another hung parliament: Con 305, Lab 185, LibDem 82, SNP 51
Which should also lead to PR as that outcome would be pretty outrageous vis a vis relative voting share.
Once Labour realises it can never win again under FPTP, PR is inevitable.
If anyone wants to for a government with Lib Der support, that is also likely true.
I don't think they would be fobbed off with a few ministerial cars and a referendum on AV next time around.
Here’s a reasonably high-res video of the Labour activist who confronted (& was lied to his face by) Johnson yesterday. Can anyone show me this supposed microphone (with a link to the actual product please)? Because I’m not seeing it. https://twitter.com/gully_burrows/status/1174283589040713728
Interesting to see the longer clip for more context.Mr Salem isn't making an explicitly partisan point. He talks about disarray in the hospital. It's clearly meant. Johnson's problem is that the message is incompatible with his propaganda visit, where he wants grateful patients to burnish his NHS credentials.
My key takeaway is that hospitals should ban politicians from making press visits. Royalty is maybe OK.
Psychology of a bureaucracy. Nurse goes away to fetch the boss when things get tricky for Johnson and so the high hied-yins rush over to form a slightly intimidating phalanx surrounding the person making the complaint.
Edit Of course the bureaucrats failed in their duty. Their job was to make sure Johnson got nowhere near a patient with a mind of their own.
I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.
I think there is doubt. Given that he included the hospital in his tweet, anyone searching for tweets related to the hospital would have found his tweet - generally the point of twitter is that it is a public platform.
There is, of course, the point that journalists with many thousands of followers are far more aware of the ramifications of being in the public gaze on Twitter than some bloke with a handful of followers.
If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
He tweeted it because he wanted publicity, and he got it! I would have thought he and his fellow Labour activists/employees/employers think it has turned out brilliantly
I am generally no fan of Kuenssberg. However in this case I think her actions were proper taken as a whole. She tweeted the opinion of the person who angrily confronted Johnson at a hospital in the news story of the day. She tweeted her observation (which I think most will share) to the effect that Johnson didn't know how to respond. When it came to light that the person was a Corbyn-supporting Labour activist, she tweeted that too.
I would wish to know all of those facts before forming an opinion on the matter so I think she has done a reasonable job of reporting them.
Labour activists are also members of the general public. If the prime minister wants to do a public visit he has to be prepared to meet people with differing opinion. Being able to respond appropriately with "akward" members of the public should be a basic competence of all MPs, not just cabinet members. Sadly Brown, May and Johnson are/were left wanting in this respect.
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out.
I think you might be overrating our Laura!!
I'm sorry that she's not up to the high journalistic standards you've come to expect at The New European
I've encountered more skilled story-getters on school papers
As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.
Please explain? There are 48% of people who voted against Brexit. There is a probable higher number who now think it is a mistake. A large number of these would like to give those responsible for promoting it a kicking, or at least withdraw support from them.
The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's). I think it will work well for them. The policy is very unlikely to be implemented. I will vote for them as they are in the "sensible middle"even though I think us remaining in Europe is no longer practicable or desirable
It can't be done in a hurry. Decisions need to be made, such as the mechanism for making it proportional... open lists? Regions a la Holyrood? Does the electoral commission need to be involved? It's urgent, but it should be done well, which means taking our time about it. Start now though.
No need to overthink it, just pick a Scandanavian country and use their system, they're all pretty good
150 four member constituencies elected by STV the only issue is to sort out the boundaries.
You keep the notion of current contituencies but aglommerate neighbouring constituencies into blocks of 4s, making 162 Blocks. The speaker and deputy speaker's contituencies would be in blocks of 5 constituencies. This solves the problem of citizens in the Speaker's constituency not getting an effective vote.
If and when the Speaker and Deputy Speaker change then a few of the blocks would have boundary changes but still observing the constituency boundaries.
The block assignment could be done in no time at all, then there might be a couple of practical problems with the initial assignment which needs to be tweaked. Sorted before lunch.
We then spend the next six months arguing over a nicer name for "block".
How about ‘constituency’?
That's reserved for the 650 existing constituencies whose boundaries will be kept.
That statement is quite a dangerous one, because it implies Europe (the continent) is at the moment is unsafe and will be until Bosnia joins the EU.
What's much more dangerous here is the Albanian Prime Ministers choice of footwear.
They do say that "shoes complete the outfit", so the gentleman in question is obviously incomplete just like the total integration of Europe. Perhaps he is making a deeper statement than you appreciate
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.
But the people tweeting abuse to Laura Kuenssberg have already admitted on here they are biased, so of course they treat the same behaviour differently depending on who did it and the side they're on
Abuse is pushing it! But, yes, I had not seen the other tweets, only LK's. As I say, I did not have a big problem withthe first Tweet she did, I did have a problem with the second one, identified above. Inviting a pile on is not a good look. It's clear now that a number of journalists did the same, seeing the political affiliaiton of the anxious father as being a bigger deal than the fact that the PM lied to him. It does none of them any credit. But I am biased. Others see it differently. Maybe they are biased too.
The block assignment could be done in no time at all, then there might be a couple of practical problems with the initial assignment which needs to be tweaked. Sorted before lunch.
Hmmm... maybe we should get DExEU on it. They have experience in negotiating the easiest deals in the world. Apparently.....
That statement is quite a dangerous one, because it implies Europe (the continent) is at the moment is unsafe and will be until Bosnia joins the EU.
What's much more dangerous here is the Albanian Prime Ministers choice of footwear.
They do say that "shoes complete the outfit", so the gentleman in question is obviously incomplete just like the total integration of Europe. Perhaps he is making a deeper statement than you appreciate
Ah. The old metaphorical use of plimsolls trick. It's obvious when you think about it.
As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.
Please explain? There are 48% of people who voted against Brexit. There is a probable higher number who now think it is a mistake. A large number of these would like to give those responsible for promoting it a kicking, or at least withdraw support from them.
The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's). I think it will work well for them. The policy is very unlikely to be implemented. I will vote for them as they are in the "sensible middle"even though I think us remaining in Europe is no longer practicable or desirable
The problem is that the LDs have made themselves a single issue party. If they manage to stop Brexit then they will have outlived their usefulness (see UKIP). If Brexit happens then they can continue as a vehicle for rejoin but this will be a lot harder (particularly if we somehow leave with a deal).
They have also completely alienated Brexit voters (some who previously voted for them in places like Torbay)
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.
But the people tweeting abuse to Laura Kuenssberg have already admitted on here they are biased, so of course they treat the same behaviour differently depending on who did it and the side they're on
Abuse is pushing it! But, yes, I had not seen the other tweets, only LK's. As I say, I did not have a big problem withthe first Tweet she did, I did have a problem with the second one, identified above. Inviting a pile on is not a good look. It's clear now that a number of journalists did the same, seeing the political affiliaiton of the anxious father as being a bigger deal than the fact that the PM lied to him. It does none of them any credit. But I am biased. Others see it differently. Maybe they are biased too.
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
FWIW, I think the abuse directed at both her and the dad/activist is abhorrent.
Has abuse been directed at the father - beyond pointing out his political affiliation?
The fact he is a labour activist or whatever is irrelevant, he was there due to his 7 day old daughter being gravely ill. He was not thinking oh good chance to get one in for labour here when he saw Johnson. He just thought you lying git in here for a photo op with shedloads of cameras and surrounded by toadying medical staff when his daughter had little to no staff for medical care. All the big buffoon could say is where are the press???????? Typical Tories trying to smear the little guy
Have PBers caught on to the fact that there is no conspiracy here, and that Laura K is just, well, a bit crap?
The conspiracy is that the story needs to move onto Laura Kuenssberg and other journalists being victims of a witch hunt, now that maximum juice has been extracted from the "parent with sick child" is actually a "Labour activist luring Johnson into an ambush" angle
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
Yes I agree. Voters want resolution to this one way or another.
As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.
Please explain? There are 48% of people who voted against Brexit. There is a probable higher number who now think it is a mistake. A large number of these would like to give those responsible for promoting it a kicking, or at least withdraw support from them.
The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's). I think it will work well for them. The policy is very unlikely to be implemented. I will vote for them as they are in the "sensible middle"even though I think us remaining in Europe is no longer practicable or desirable
The problem is that the LDs have made themselves a single issue party. If they manage to stop Brexit then they will have outlived their usefulness (see UKIP). If Brexit happens then they can continue as a vehicle for rejoin but this will be a lot harder (particularly if we somehow leave with a deal).
They have also completely alienated Brexit voters (some who previously voted for them in places like Torbay)
I doubt that is true. Remain and Leave are very much part of a much wider culture war - and that will not end post-Brexit. It is likely to intensify. Both the LDs and the Tories have recognised this. Labour is the odd one out and still believes class is the defining factor in how people vote.
It's a fairly cogent argument to make that increased ecstasy use is a net health benefit to society, as it tends to correlate with a decrease in alcohol usage. Ecstasy is much less toxic than alcohol (indeed it's one of the least toxic recreational drugs) so there could be a case for legalisation.
Surely at any point parliament can legislate to set a limit on the amount of the the executive can prorogue Parliament for if they wish?
Not if the executive keeps proroguing to forestall it.
Yeah, also legislating away the prerogative power needs royal assent, which is based on advice from the PM. If you have a PM who wants to prorogue and the Parliament attempts to legislate that power away, it sits with the PM to allow that. Obviously that leaves the PM checking their own power.
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
So what does a "Diehard Remainer" do in a Con/Lab constituency where the LDs are in a distant 3rd place? There are a lot of such constituencies.
If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
FWIW, I think the abuse directed at both her and the dad/activist is abhorrent.
Has abuse been directed at the father - beyond pointing out his political affiliation?
The fact he is a labour activist or whatever is irrelevant, he was there due to his 7 day old daughter being gravely ill. He was not thinking oh good chance to get one in for labour here when he saw Johnson. He just thought you lying git in here for a photo op with shedloads of cameras and surrounded by toadying medical staff when his daughter had little to no staff for medical care. All the big buffoon could say is where are the press???????? Typical Tories trying to smear the little guy
If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
Is "pseudonymous" a word? It is quite a clever Portmanteu.
I do research with hospital records, which are pseudonymised - not entirely anonymous as it's important to be able to link e.g. separate hospitalisations for the same person, but with a random set of letters/numbers rather than NHS number or name (for obvious reasons!).
(You also need to convince the data providers that you really need everything you ask for, have the security arrangements for holding the data vetted, verifiably destroy the data once the research is done and obey rules on what detail of results you can publish).
Surely at any point parliament can legislate to set a limit on the amount of the the executive can prorogue Parliament for if they wish?
Not if the executive keeps proroguing to forestall it.
Well yes as it currently stands the executive could actually do that legally (IMO) but if they did we'd probably end up with riots and maybe even a civil war before long so I doubt any executive would wish to go down that route for too long.
I do think when the current crisis is over Parliament should legislate to define the terms of proroguation legally though (and the 2004 civil contingencies act needs revisiting as a lot of people said at the time)
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
I'm not sure people do want resolution, or if they do they are not thinking it through. Resolution comes through consensus being reached. Only Labour are trying to reach consensus and they are not being rewarded for it.
OT. The tables for the YouGov poll are now available and show Lab 2017 vote share going to the Liberals increasing from 18% to 26% following Swinson's announcement.
What should worry Labour is not only the fact that Labour is back down to 21% (-2), but that this time the Greens are on only 4% (-3). Previously, Labour supporters here would argue that the Greens' vote share would be squeezed at a GE and come back to Labour, so low Labour vote shares with YouGov were an anomaly. There was something in that argument while YouGov consistently had the Greens at 7% as opposed to 3%-4% with other polling companies. Now there is precious little Green vote left to squeeze for the Remain parties (and it is hardly a given that the Green vote will fall further to the 2% they achieved in 2017 as opposed to staying at 4% as achieved in 2015). In addition, with the Libs surging as the Green and Labour vote falls, why should we assume that Labour will be the sole beneficiary of any further squeeze on the Greens?
By contrast, the Tories on 32% still have plenty of scope to squeeze the Brexit Party's vote share, which is holding up at 14%.
Trudeau. Lol. I think by the millennium we knew the black and white minstrels were racist bucko. I wonder if he put on a funny accent too, the naughty little noodle. I love it when these super woke pricks turn out to be full of wind and piss
His apology seems to show that at the time he was in a pre-woke state of unaware ness. A bit like Harry was. Some personal moral growth is a good thing surely?
Apparently he sang Day-O, while in that blackface. Really
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
I'm not sure people do want resolution, or if they do they are not thinking it through. Resolution comes through consensus being reached. Only Labour are trying to reach consensus and they are not being rewarded for it.
To be fair, the people who "just want to get on with it" think that changing the facts on the ground is a quicker way to reach consensus. Of course the same applies for revoking Article 50. Perhaps after revocation, Brexit will not be a subject anyone wants to talk about.
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
True, although much depends on how far the message is got across that the Johnson/Farage line does NOT "resolve Brexit one way or another". No deal is merely the absence of a deal - and it means continuing to negotiate for a deal from the outside and with a backdrop of economic effects and problems in the supply of certain foods and medicines. I think a lot of people wrongly think it's a ticket to move on.
Mr. Foremain, prior to the policy shift from referendum to revocation via Parliament, the Lib Dems had pretty much the whole Remain playground to themselves.
Moving away from a referendum to a revocation means they lose soft Remainers and those who think that, just perhaps, a sustainable position is better than one that deepens already entrenched division and bitterness. The principle that a General Election can override a referendum result (itself endorsed by Parliament) is certainly grist to the SNP mill.
The super pro-Remain types are not going to vote twice for the Lib Dems, so they've lost rather than gained potential support. And if their numbers are currently rising that doesn't dispel the fact that they've put a ceiling on that support by deciding a referendum result should be ignored in favour of an electoral result, which could be won by 35% support from the electorate.
On top of that, winning a referendum is likely far easier for Remain than getting a Lib Dem majority. So they've put off soft Remain and uncertain floating voters for a purity policy unlikely to ever be delivered, and done so by abandoning a more sensible approach that was far more achievable. Oh, and they broke their nascent 'Remain alliance'.
If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
Is "pseudonymous" a word? It is quite a clever Portmanteu.
I do research with hospital records, which are pseudonymised - not entirely anonymous as it's important to be able to link e.g. separate hospitalisations for the same person, but with a random set of letters/numbers rather than NHS number or name (for obvious reasons!).
(You also need to convince the data providers that you really need everything you ask for, have the security arrangements for holding the data vetted, verifiably destroy the data once the research is done and obey rules on what detail of results you can publish).
Interesting, thank you, but it is a different usage to the social media pseudonym meant here.
The "pseudonymised" hospital records you are talking about are really just a Unique-ID designed to be difficult for a human to interpret.
As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.
Please explain? There are 48% of people who voted against Brexit. There is a probable higher number who now think it is a mistake. A large number of these would like to give those responsible for promoting it a kicking, or at least withdraw support from them.
The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's). I think it will work well for them. The policy is very unlikely to be implemented. I will vote for them as they are in the "sensible middle"even though I think us remaining in Europe is no longer practicable or desirable
The problem is that the LDs have made themselves a single issue party. If they manage to stop Brexit then they will have outlived their usefulness (see UKIP). If Brexit happens then they can continue as a vehicle for rejoin but this will be a lot harder (particularly if we somehow leave with a deal).
They have also completely alienated Brexit voters (some who previously voted for them in places like Torbay)
I doubt that is true. Remain and Leave are very much part of a much wider culture war - and that will not end post-Brexit. It is likely to intensify. Both the LDs and the Tories have recognised this. Labour is the odd one out and still believes class is the defining factor in how people vote.
Lib Dems should adopt the slogan 'Tough on Brexit, Tough on the causes of Brexit'. Economically they should help the 'left behind', follow on from the raising of the tax threshhold. As for other policies, fighting Climate Change and constitutional reform will do for starters.
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
So what does a "Diehard Remainer" do in a Con/Lab constituency where the LDs are in a distant 3rd place? There are a lot of such constituencies.
Id recommend they follow the actions below in order.
1. Check Brexit voting record of existing MP if standing again. If favourable stick with. 2. Check neither candidate is an ERG/Momentum nutter, if both are vote LD/Green/Ind/Other, if one is vote for their opponent. 3. If seat isnt at all marginal then vote LD/Green/Ind/Other 4. If opinion polls are still pointing to a small tory majority, vote Labour. If somehow Labour get ahead vote LD/Green/Other.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49729161
The fact that someone may have shared their experience with their own small circle of followers doesn’t mean that they have consented to you bringing down a river of shit on their heads.
No doubt the next election will be like the last one with the PM hiding away and refusing debates and interviews, with the odd speech to carefully screened Tory activists behind locked doors.
As for Laura K identifying him, perhaps she should have thought twice about it, though as @Brom points out, he himself did Tweet about it so I'd suggest that makes it fair game.
Having said that, I do think those people/organisations with a lot of followers should think carefully about their actions. In November 2017, Arsenal Tweeted journalist Adam Crafton after they defeated Spurs 2-0. When asked to pick a combined Arsenal/Spurs team in the week before the game, Crafton had picked the Spurs XI (I would have done too!). He received a lot of abuse after this. I don't use Twitter myself, and I guess it's easy to block abusive posters, but he was inundated with it after this and that must have been annoying if not distressing:
https://twitter.com/Arsenal/status/931895814720548864/photo/1
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/18/the-harsh-reality-of-underfunding-at-my-hospital-swept-away-for-johnson-visit
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1173967781504671745?s=21
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.
If and when the Speaker and Deputy Speaker change then a few of the blocks would have boundary changes but still observing the constituency boundaries.
The block assignment could be done in no time at all, then there might be a couple of practical problems with the initial assignment which needs to be tweaked. Sorted before lunch.
We then spend the next six months arguing over a nicer name for "block".
While I agree that's not strictly integral to the voting system (albeit the number of ballot papers they need to print off is staggering), I would argue that it's incompatible with a categorisation of "pretty good".
But the people tweeting abuse to Laura Kuenssberg have already admitted on here they are biased, so of course they treat the same behaviour differently depending on who did it and the side they're on
All she did was share his tweet.
My key takeaway is that hospitals should ban politicians from making press visits. Royalty is maybe OK.
Psychology of a bureaucracy. Nurse goes away to fetch the boss when things get tricky for Johnson and so the high hied-yins rush over to form a slightly intimidating phalanx surrounding the person making the complaint.
Edit Of course the bureaucrats failed in their duty. Their job was to make sure Johnson got nowhere near a patient with a mind of their own.
Now he can focus on his daughter
Sadly Brown, May and Johnson are/were left wanting in this respect.
The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's). I think it will work well for them. The policy is very unlikely to be implemented. I will vote for them as they are in the "sensible middle"even though I think us remaining in Europe is no longer practicable or desirable
Think of the VAT revenue this is costing the govt. Legalise now.
https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/1174607611121025025?s=21
They have also completely alienated Brexit voters (some who previously voted for them in places like Torbay)
Surely at any point parliament can legislate to set a limit on the amount of the the executive can prorogue Parliament for if they wish?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
Typical Tories trying to smear the little guy
(You also need to convince the data providers that you really need everything you ask for, have the security arrangements for holding the data vetted, verifiably destroy the data once the research is done and obey rules on what detail of results you can publish).
I do think when the current crisis is over Parliament should legislate to define the terms of proroguation legally though (and the 2004 civil contingencies act needs revisiting as a lot of people said at the time)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dcvjryxlw9/TheTimes_190918_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
What should worry Labour is not only the fact that Labour is back down to 21% (-2), but that this time the Greens are on only 4% (-3). Previously, Labour supporters here would argue that the Greens' vote share would be squeezed at a GE and come back to Labour, so low Labour vote shares with YouGov were an anomaly. There was something in that argument while YouGov consistently had the Greens at 7% as opposed to 3%-4% with other polling companies. Now there is precious little Green vote left to squeeze for the Remain parties (and it is hardly a given that the Green vote will fall further to the 2% they achieved in 2017 as opposed to staying at 4% as achieved in 2015). In addition, with the Libs surging as the Green and Labour vote falls, why should we assume that Labour will be the sole beneficiary of any further squeeze on the Greens?
By contrast, the Tories on 32% still have plenty of scope to squeeze the Brexit Party's vote share, which is holding up at 14%.
Which somewhat puts it over the line.
https://twitter.com/iealondon/status/1174603793461403648?s=21
Moving away from a referendum to a revocation means they lose soft Remainers and those who think that, just perhaps, a sustainable position is better than one that deepens already entrenched division and bitterness. The principle that a General Election can override a referendum result (itself endorsed by Parliament) is certainly grist to the SNP mill.
The super pro-Remain types are not going to vote twice for the Lib Dems, so they've lost rather than gained potential support. And if their numbers are currently rising that doesn't dispel the fact that they've put a ceiling on that support by deciding a referendum result should be ignored in favour of an electoral result, which could be won by 35% support from the electorate.
On top of that, winning a referendum is likely far easier for Remain than getting a Lib Dem majority. So they've put off soft Remain and uncertain floating voters for a purity policy unlikely to ever be delivered, and done so by abandoning a more sensible approach that was far more achievable. Oh, and they broke their nascent 'Remain alliance'.
It's a triumph of ideology over pragmatism.
The "pseudonymised" hospital records you are talking about are really just a Unique-ID designed to be difficult for a human to interpret.
Economically they should help the 'left behind', follow on from the raising of the tax threshhold.
As for other policies, fighting Climate Change and constitutional reform will do for starters.
1. Check Brexit voting record of existing MP if standing again. If favourable stick with.
2. Check neither candidate is an ERG/Momentum nutter, if both are vote LD/Green/Ind/Other, if one is vote for their opponent.
3. If seat isnt at all marginal then vote LD/Green/Ind/Other
4. If opinion polls are still pointing to a small tory majority, vote Labour. If somehow Labour get ahead vote LD/Green/Other.