Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.
OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?
Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through. Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election
And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
O/T as I predicted last night the Democrats got a bit of a shellacking across the board last night in the Louisiana elections (although the popular Dem Governor Edwards might still win in the Governor run-off in November). Interestingly exit polls showed 47 per cent of Independents voted a straight Republican ticket ,which is pretty unheard of in these types of election when so many different offices are up for grabs.This is a very strong indicator that Trump is polling very well with Indies at least in the South.
47.4% for Bel Edwards is almost eight points more than he got in the 2015 primary. (And the other Dems in 2015 only got 1.8% between them in '15).
So I think that's a very strong finish for him that pretty much guarantees him the Governorship.
He did ok but is a popular incumbent.The rest of the Dem performance was appalling.
I'm just scanning the raw numbers and the results seem almost identical to 2015. So, in both the Attorney General and Leuitenant Governor races the Dems got almost exactly the same vote share as last time around.
In the state Senate, did any seats even change hands? It seems so gerrymandered that the number of competitive seats seems close to zero. (Which also makes real analysis of the results difficult.)
Looking purely at the state wide races, the Dems have done no worse than 2015 anywhere, and substantial better in the Governor's race.
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
I genuinely don’t understand why anyone would want foreign citizens to be able to vote. It seems mad to me to even suggest it. I don’t want them to have a say in how I’m governed unless or until they naturalise.
And yet for you it is obvious that they should. Just shows you - views on this will vary a lot. Probably indicates the difference between having an internationalist mindset and not.
Judging by the kinds of things you've said here, I don't want you to have any say in the way that I'm governed. Yet I acknowledge your humanity and your right to make the stupid choices you will undoubtedly make. I can't in all conscience freeze you out of the political process, so how can you do the same with your neighbour? They are just like you, living in the same street, breathing the same air, driving on the same roads. Their blood is just like yours and their hopes for their own lives and the lives of their children will be much the same as yours. Yet you think you should have a say and they should not.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
Labour proposes to extend the vote to all UK residents instead of just citizens! That's 3 million extra people, which would be the largest gerrymander in modern history.
You were saying?
Have they proposed that? If so, well done them. It's deeply immoral that people who are allowed to live in a place are not allowed to vote in national elections.
The only thing that's immoral would be the socialist loons creating a new electorate because they know that they can never win under the existing one...
I am far from clear that the people currently denied a vote would choose to vote Labour in any greater numbers than us Brits do. I for one would give them the vote even if I knew they were likely to vote for parties I don't like, such as the Conservatives or Labour. The live here. The way this country is run matters to them in a deeply personal way, just like it does to you.
If it mattered quite so deeply to them, they could become citizens, as is required to obtain voting rights in almost every country in the world.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
There are no proposals to demand a passport or driver's licence. That is a scare mongering lie. The voter ID requirements are not even close to requiring photo ID.
And, of course, NI has been coping perfectly well with full voter ID for a long time
My apologies for any upset, but it does seem that there are such proposals - or for technical accuracy will very soon be, in the Queen's Speech. I was going by this: which also notes that they have a different system with actual voter ID cards in NI.
That looks a crucial distinction to me - if the Tories are serious about making this about tackling fraud, they’ll adopt something like the NI system which is proven effective. Can’t quite get the outrage from the left about this, but if they go for the hardest version (as it seems they will) hard to see where a majority will come from. So like the boundary review (and indeed Brexit) the Tories may well end up with nothing due to needless over-reaching. When a more modest measure would have gone through.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
The difference is between debating and legislating over a period of time and shoehorning a partisan change in without scrutiny
Thanks. Fair enough if that is what is to happen.
The context was amendments to the post b cit election bill. Don’t know if real or just media guff
Mr. Owls, that won't get Corbyn's support. They need to call it the Conciliatory Communal Customs Partnership (CCCP) to get him on board.
To think I have purchased 2 of your books!!
Wow - you've cornered the market!
(Apologies MD )
Re Labour Leader, I too think RLB is the most likely.
I'm actually hoping that Matthew Pennycook rises from obscurity to get the gig though - slight accident on BF some years ago caused me to have a strong interest in his rise! (He actually doesn't look to total chump, although obviously has no chance in hell)
Beyond RLB I think you just need to look at who Momentum like - so the likes of Burgon may stand a better chance than someone with capability.
It seems to me that there's space in the race for a male candidate from the left - I've no idea who that might be though.
The only sure thing is that David Milliband is not going to give up his gravy train, seek election in some constiuency where he'll be opposed by the left, magically convince his colleagues that he hasn't sold out, and then smarm his way to everyone's hearts. I doubt he'll do a single one of these - let alone all.
Voting rights should only be associated with citizenship - not residency. If you want to vote where you live, become a citizen of that country.
I don't see a problem with this as the basis for a voting system.
You're entitled to that view - but if the Tories want an election anytime soon, given the current parliamentary arithmetic, they're going to have to appeal to MPs (the Lib Dems) who believe residency is enough to be entitled to vote, and who may well make that a condition for their support for an early election.
Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.
OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?
Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through. Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election
And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government
Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.
OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?
Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through. Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election
And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.
I think it might be because 16- and 17-year-olds won't necessarily be that enthused about voting Tory. Just a hunch.
Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.
OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?
Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through. Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election
And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.
I think it might be because 16- and 17-year-olds won't necessarily be that enthused about voting Tory. Just a hunch.
And maybe that's why some are really pushing for it, too.
Corbynites hate her for being vocally anti-Corbyn, and they control the party for now.
She's great. She did the best demolition job ob Boris Johnson I've heard. With her authentic Birmingham twang "He's just a liar. Just a complete liar. That's all there is to be said". I believed her. She's a rare thing in the Labour Party at the moment. She sounds straight talking and authentic.
When Corbyn sends his demolition squads out you know she's hitting the mark. The public would love her unlike Laura Pidcock who sounds like a moron.
Good Leader of the narcissist part
After the one regularly attended by a group of the faithful chanting his name ? You might be right.
Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.
OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?
Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through. Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election
And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.
I think it might be because 16- and 17-year-olds won't necessarily be that enthused about voting Tory. Just a hunch.
Otherwise known as an obvious gerrymander by the left. You can't persuade the existing electorate, so you'd like to create a new one that may prove more malleable to your manipulations.
Voting rights should only be associated with citizenship - not residency. If you want to vote where you live, become a citizen of that country.
I don't see a problem with this as the basis for a voting system.
You're entitled to that view - but if the Tories want an election anytime soon, given the current parliamentary arithmetic, they're going to have to appeal to MPs (the Lib Dems) who believe residency is enough to be entitled to vote, and who may well make that a condition for their support for an early election.
Gerrymandering the voting system immediately prior to an election? I thought that kind of behaviour was beneath the LDs.
Voting rights should only be associated with citizenship - not residency. If you want to vote where you live, become a citizen of that country.
I don't see a problem with this as the basis for a voting system.
Firstly, what do you think citizenship confers on the mind of an individual that residency does not? In other words, how do you think that justifies something that I would call discrimination? Secondly, people who have British citizenship but who have lived abroad for over -- is it 15 years? -- don't have a vote in the UK any more. Why not?
At some point there will be an ISIS attack in a European city.
And Trump will be to blame.
And unless Americans are killed or injured, I doubt he will care very much. I would not be surprised if he checks first to see if and Americans involved are registered Democrats or Republicans before making any comments...
At some point there will be an ISIS attack in a European city.
And Trump will be to blame.
And unless Americans are killed or injured, I doubt he will care very much. I would not be surprised if he checks first to see if and Americans involved are registered Democrats or Republicans before making any comments...
Well if they're in Socialist Europistan of course they'll be Democrats!
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
There are no proposals to demand a passport or driver's licence. That is a scare mongering lie. The voter ID requirements are not even close to requiring photo ID.
And, of course, NI has been coping perfectly well with full voter ID for a long time
My apologies for any upset, but it does seem that there are such proposals - or for technical accuracy will very soon be, in the Queen's Speech. I was going by this: which also notes that they have a different system with actual voter ID cards in NI.
That looks a crucial distinction to me - if the Tories are serious about making this about tackling fraud, they’ll adopt something like the NI system which is proven effective. Can’t quite get the outrage from the left about this, but if they go for the hardest version (as it seems they will) hard to see where a majority will come from. So like the boundary review (and indeed Brexit) the Tories may well end up with nothing due to needless over-reaching. When a more modest measure would have gone through.
It is surely intended by CCHQ to suppress the Labour vote but off the top of my head, I'd wonder if this will not be an own goal by the blue team. Unlike in America, it may be that left-leaning groups are more likely to have passports, because they are young, or from immigrant families, or muslims committed to Hajj.
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government
You're just restating the issue, not justifying the discrimination.
Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.
OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?
Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through. Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election
And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.
I think it might be because 16- and 17-year-olds won't necessarily be that enthused about voting Tory. Just a hunch.
And maybe that's why some are really pushing for it, too.
Yup: again, politicians do what's in their self-interest. The exact same way that the Tories spent the whole of the period between June 2017 and September 2019 insisting a new election was completely unnecessary, until suddenly it became absolutely essential just coincidentally at the time when they regained a consistent lead in the opinion polls.
At some point there will be an ISIS attack in a European city.
And Trump will be to blame.
And unless Americans are killed or injured, I doubt he will care very much. I would not be surprised if he checks first to see if and Americans involved are registered Democrats or Republicans before making any comments...
How do GOP senators sleep at night? Have they any idea how their country is now perceived in the wider world.
Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.
OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?
Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through. Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election
And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.
I think it might be because 16- and 17-year-olds won't necessarily be that enthused about voting Tory. Just a hunch.
And maybe that's why some are really pushing for it, too.
Yup: again, politicians do what's in their self-interest. The exact same way that the Tories spent the whole of the period between June 2017 and September 2019 insisting a new election was completely unnecessary, until suddenly it became absolutely essential just coincidentally at the time when they regained a consistent lead in the opinion polls.
The change of leader might have had something to do with that?
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government
Speaking as a citizen who's not allowed to vote I don't have a strong opinion whether it should be based on residence or nationality but I think the British should pick one or the other.
The Tories claimed in multiple manifestos that they'd at least partly reduce the disparity and restore my right to vote but they're showing no signs of ever getting it done, so if Labour are going to straighten it out in the opposite direction that sounds fair to me.
I thought the only point of the whole rigmarole was to make sure the wine wasn’t actually corked. Which isn’t a particularly common occurrence these days anyway - though I suppose Crouch is more likely to be able to afford old clarets than the rest of us.
If it mattered quite so deeply to them, they could become citizens, as is required to obtain voting rights in almost every country in the world.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
Why would they? Other parties have much to offer immigrants. I'm willing to concede the point if you have some data to prove it, but until then I don't see it. Furthermore, it doesn't change my argument. I'm not a Labour voter. I've no desire to help Labour, just to do what I firmly believe to be the right thing to do. It would immoral to oppose this simply because you don't like the way they will vote.
At some point there will be an ISIS attack in a European city.
And Trump will be to blame.
And unless Americans are killed or injured, I doubt he will care very much. I would not be surprised if he checks first to see if and Americans involved are registered Democrats or Republicans before making any comments...
How do GOP senators sleep at night?
They check that their voter base is secure and then turn out the light.
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government
You're just restating the issue, not justifying the discrimination.
What you call "discrimination", centuries of civic theory and practice call good sense.
Handing out the right to vote any resident will enormously incentivise large numbers of people to move here and vote for the nation's wealth to be "redistributed" in their direction...
At some point there will be an ISIS attack in a European city.
And Trump will be to blame.
And unless Americans are killed or injured, I doubt he will care very much. I would not be surprised if he checks first to see if and Americans involved are registered Democrats or Republicans before making any comments...
Were it to be London, it would likely be an opportunity to criticise the mayor again. It ought to be understood that he genuinely doesn’t give a damn.
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
I genuinely don’t understand why anyone would want foreign citizens to be able to vote. It seems mad to me to even suggest it. I don’t want them to have a say in how I’m governed unless or until they naturalise.
And yet for you it is obvious that they should. Just shows you - views on this will vary a lot. Probably indicates the difference between having an internationalist mindset and not.
Judging by the kinds of things you've said here, I don't want you to have any say in the way that I'm governed. Yet I acknowledge your humanity and your right to make the stupid choices you will undoubtedly make. I can't in all conscience freeze you out of the political process, so how can you do the same with your neighbour? They are just like you, living in the same street, breathing the same air, driving on the same roads. Their blood is just like yours and their hopes for their own lives and the lives of their children will be much the same as yours. Yet you think you should have a say and they should not.
Do you feel better now you’ve been rude to the mean man on the internet?
We’re not going to convince each other On here - the useful bit of the internet is coming to understand the other point of view. So, you’ve been childish, but It’s interesting to get a sense of your point of view on the issue itself. It feels like you think countries are just the place where we live, and nationality doesn’t matter. That’s quite interesting.
If it mattered quite so deeply to them, they could become citizens, as is required to obtain voting rights in almost every country in the world.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
Why would they? Other parties have much to offer immigrants. I'm willing to concede the point if you have some data to prove it, but until then I don't see it. Furthermore, it doesn't change my argument. I'm not a Labour voter. I've no desire to help Labour, just to do what I firmly believe to be the right thing to do. It would immoral to oppose this simply because you don't like the way they will vote.
"Immoral" according to whom? You and a small band of Utopian internationalists? The vast majority of the Earth's governments carefully regulate both citizenship and the right to vote in order to avoid a destructive free-for-all. Your solipsistic adjudication that that practice is immoral carries no weight in the real world.
Apparently the UK hasn’t put forward any new text yet to the EU .
Which means putting this into a legal framework hasn’t started . Don’t see how on earth this gets done before 31st October .
Brexit will be a disaster. Boris knows this. That is why he is desperate to have an election after he has secured Brexit but before the fact of it. Jeremy Corbyn refused to play ball, so now there can be no election before hallowe'en. Therefore, Boris needs a pretext to delay Brexit while appearing to be firmly committed to 31st October.
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government
You're just restating the issue, not justifying the discrimination.
What you call "discrimination", centuries of civic theory and practice call good sense.
Handing out the right to vote any resident will enormously incentivise large numbers of people to move here and vote for the nation's wealth to be "redistributed" in their direction...
Do you really think so? When I moved to another country, it didn't even occur to me to ask whether or not I got a vote. I did it for the same reason that almost every other single immigrant I've ever met had: for a specific job, or a specific university course, of for general work prospects. Moving country can be difficult and disruptive, and requires a bit of get-up-and-go. It's not the sort of thing you do to have an easy time of it. Immigrants, in my experience, tend to work harder.
At some point there will be an ISIS attack in a European city.
And Trump will be to blame.
And unless Americans are killed or injured, I doubt he will care very much. I would not be surprised if he checks first to see if and Americans involved are registered Democrats or Republicans before making any comments...
Were it to be London, it would likely be an opportunity to criticise the mayor again. It ought to be understood that he genuinely doesn’t give a damn.
If it mattered quite so deeply to them, they could become citizens, as is required to obtain voting rights in almost every country in the world.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
Why would they? Other parties have much to offer immigrants. I'm willing to concede the point if you have some data to prove it, but until then I don't see it. Furthermore, it doesn't change my argument. I'm not a Labour voter. I've no desire to help Labour, just to do what I firmly believe to be the right thing to do. It would immoral to oppose this simply because you don't like the way they will vote.
"Immoral" according to whom? You and a small band of Utopian internationalists? The vast majority of the Earth's governments carefully regulate both citizenship and the right to vote in order to avoid a destructive free-for-all. Your solipsistic adjudication that that practice is immoral carries no weight in the real world.
We've been over this point earlier. Universality is no measure of morality. Votes for women used to be a no-no pretty much everywhere. Slavery was universal until it wasn't. It's not like it suddenly became wrong, it was always wrong. And this idea that voting -- voting! -- can be described as a destructive free-for-all isbaffling. Just how low a view do you really have of immigrants?
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government
You're just restating the issue, not justifying the discrimination.
What you call "discrimination", centuries of civic theory and practice call good sense.
Handing out the right to vote any resident will enormously incentivise large numbers of people to move here and vote for the nation's wealth to be "redistributed" in their direction...
So in the case of somebody who moved here 10 years ago and has been paying taxes, but never bothered to apply for residence because they are an EU citizen?
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government
You're just restating the issue, not justifying the discrimination.
What you call "discrimination", centuries of civic theory and practice call good sense.
Handing out the right to vote any resident will enormously incentivise large numbers of people to move here and vote for the nation's wealth to be "redistributed" in their direction...
Do you really think so? When I moved to another country, it didn't even occur to me to ask whether or not I got a vote. I did it for the same reason that almost every other single immigrant I've ever met had: for a specific job, or a specific university course, of for general work prospects. Moving country can be difficult and disruptive, and requires a bit of get-up-and-go. It's not the sort of thing you do to have an easy time of it. Immigrants, in my experience, tend to work harder.
Were you moving from a very poor country to a very rich one? If not, then that's not terribly relevant.
If it mattered quite so deeply to them, they could become citizens, as is required to obtain voting rights in almost every country in the world.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
Why would they? Other parties have much to offer immigrants. I'm willing to concede the point if you have some data to prove it, but until then I don't see it. Furthermore, it doesn't change my argument. I'm not a Labour voter. I've no desire to help Labour, just to do what I firmly believe to be the right thing to do. It would immoral to oppose this simply because you don't like the way they will vote.
"Immoral" according to whom? You and a small band of Utopian internationalists? The vast majority of the Earth's governments carefully regulate both citizenship and the right to vote in order to avoid a destructive free-for-all. Your solipsistic adjudication that that practice is immoral carries no weight in the real world.
We've been over this point earlier. Universality is no measure of morality. Votes for women used to be a no-no pretty much everywhere. Slavery was universal until it wasn't. It's not like it suddenly became wrong, it was always wrong. And this idea that voting -- voting! -- can be described as a destructive free-for-all isbaffling. Just how low a view do you really have of immigrants?
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government
You're just restating the issue, not justifying the discrimination.
What you call "discrimination", centuries of civic theory and practice call good sense.
Handing out the right to vote any resident will enormously incentivise large numbers of people to move here and vote for the nation's wealth to be "redistributed" in their direction...
So in the case of somebody who moved here 10 years ago and has been paying taxes, but never bothered to apply for residence because they are an EU citizen?
Most countries don't offer the vote to people who aren't citizens, even those who pay taxes. Giving voting rights to non-citizen residents is unusual.
Judging by the kinds of things you've said here, I don't want you to have any say in the way that I'm governed. Yet I acknowledge your humanity and your right to make the stupid choices you will undoubtedly make. I can't in all conscience freeze you out of the political process, so how can you do the same with your neighbour? They are just like you, living in the same street, breathing the same air, driving on the same roads. Their blood is just like yours and their hopes for their own lives and the lives of their children will be much the same as yours. Yet you think you should have a say and they should not.
Do you feel better now you’ve been rude to the mean man on the internet?
We’re not going to convince each other On here - the useful bit of the internet is coming to understand the other point of view. So, you’ve been childish, but It’s interesting to get a sense of your point of view on the issue itself. It feels like you think countries are just the place where we live, and nationality doesn’t matter. That’s quite interesting.
Oh, I'm sorry, was that a little sharp for you? Did it hurt you to realise that I think your choices would probably be stupid? Never mind, I'm sure you'll get over it. As for nationality not mattering as much as where you live -- absolutely. Of course it's residency that matters. That's where you pay your tax, and where you use public services. If you drive on the motorway, the road is either good or bad, the colour of your passport doesn't matter. If a house on your street catches fire, you don't have a special number to dial according to who lives there -- 999 if they look local, 998 if you think they might be a bit forrun -- it's all the same. This is what your vote is for, to choose people who will run the country in which you live well. We have democracy because the more people who have an input into that, the better. It ensures people and perspectives aren't left out through omission or malice. Quite why you think that it's right to exclude a set of people from the choice of how they are governed is still a mystery to me.
If it mattered quite so deeply to them, they could become citizens, as is required to obtain voting rights in almost every country in the world.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
Why would they? Other parties have much to offer immigrants. I'm willing to concede the point if you have some data to prove it, but until then I don't see it. Furthermore, it doesn't change my argument. I'm not a Labour voter. I've no desire to help Labour, just to do what I firmly believe to be the right thing to do. It would immoral to oppose this simply because you don't like the way they will vote.
"Immoral" according to whom? You and a small band of Utopian internationalists? The vast majority of the Earth's governments carefully regulate both citizenship and the right to vote in order to avoid a destructive free-for-all. Your solipsistic adjudication that that practice is immoral carries no weight in the real world.
We've been over this point earlier. Universality is no measure of morality. Votes for women used to be a no-no pretty much everywhere. Slavery was universal until it wasn't. It's not like it suddenly became wrong, it was always wrong. And this idea that voting -- voting! -- can be described as a destructive free-for-all isbaffling. Just how low a view do you really have of immigrants?
...It feels like you think countries are just the place where we live, and nationality doesn’t matter. That’s quite interesting...
I am not @Noo, but you do raise an interesting point. The upsurge in concepts such as the Anglosphere or CANZUK are based on the concept of loyalty to a tribe rather than a country or a sovereign state. Anglosphere patriots have transferred their loyalty to such abstract concepts and decoupled it from the Westphalian UK. This decoupling is not often discussed.
If it mattered quite so deeply to them, they could become citizens, as is required to obtain voting rights in almost every country in the world.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
Why would they? Other parties have much to offer immigrants. I'm willing to concede the point if you have some data to prove it, but until then I don't see it. Furthermore, it doesn't change my argument. I'm not a Labour voter. I've no desire to help Labour, just to do what I firmly believe to be the right thing to do. It would immoral to oppose this simply because you don't like the way they will vote.
"Immoral" according to whom? You and a small band of Utopian internationalists? The vast majority of the Earth's governments carefully regulate both citizenship and the right to vote in order to avoid a destructive free-for-all. Your solipsistic adjudication that that practice is immoral carries no weight in the real world.
We've been over this point earlier. Universality is no measure of morality. Votes for women used to be a no-no pretty much everywhere. Slavery was universal until it wasn't. It's not like it suddenly became wrong, it was always wrong. And this idea that voting -- voting! -- can be described as a destructive free-for-all isbaffling. Just how low a view do you really have of immigrants?
If it mattered quite so deeply to them, they could become citizens, as is required to obtain voting rights in almost every country in the world.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
Why would they? Other parties have much to offer immigrants. I'm willing to concede the point if you have some data to prove it, but until then I don't see it. Furthermore, it doesn't change my argument. I'm not a Labour voter. I've no desire to help Labour, just to do what I firmly believe to be the right thing to do. It would immoral to oppose this simply because you don't like the way they will vote.
"Immoral" according to whom? You and a small band of Utopian internationalists? The vast majority of the Earth's governments carefully regulate both citizenship and the right to vote in order to avoid a destructive free-for-all. Your solipsistic adjudication that that practice is immoral carries no weight in the real world.
We've been over this point earlier. Universality is no measure of morality. Votes for women used to be a no-no pretty much everywhere. Slavery was universal until it wasn't. It's not like it suddenly became wrong, it was always wrong. And this idea that voting -- voting! -- can be described as a destructive free-for-all isbaffling. Just how low a view do you really have of immigrants?
Apparently the UK hasn’t put forward any new text yet to the EU .
Which means putting this into a legal framework hasn’t started . Don’t see how on earth this gets done before 31st October .
It's not going to happen is it?
Boris told Leo he really really wanted a deal and Leo believed him, told him it required a customs arrangement in Ireland and an opt-out to Stormont and Boris said yes in principle. Let's work on it. Positive mood music.
They're still working on something that satisfies Leo and satisfies the DUP. It's not going to happen.
So how is the failure to agree going to be framed by Boris?
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It s It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it diffi ethical.
Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government
You're just restating the issue, not justifying the discrimination.
What you call "discrimination", centuries of civic theory and practice call good sense.
Handing ouuted" in their direction...
So inn EU citizen?
Most countries don't offer the vote to people who aren't citizens, even those who pay taxes. Giving voting rights to non-citizen residents is unusual.
That's the thing for me. I accept that just because other places do or do not do a thing does not make it acceptable or unacceptable automatically, and personally I am fine with non citizens voting (as is well know we have plenty of non citizens in the country who are able to vote in any case), but it does mean I find it hard to call it immoral to not give non citizens voting rights, and unless someone has always had that problem there is a bit of a feel of maufactured outrage when it is very normal practice and well known, yet someone suddenly decides it is a huge deal.
Unless they always thought it was a huge deal, it's suspicious, in the same way those of us who have long supported some kind of PR system find recent converts at election times when one side discovers their opponents can win on limited percentages. This isn't some odd quirk of a system that people did not notice, or a power people could reasonably not know about (like the Home Secretary being able to rule on someone's citizenship), it is a pretty fundamental aspect, and if people are this angry about it why was it not a big deal before?
So on balance I'm fine with the idea, but the moralising about it is, for the most part, unconvincing.
If it mattered quite so deeply to them, they could become citizens, as is required to obtain voting rights in almost every country in the world.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
Why would they? Other parties have much to offer immigrants. I'm willing to concede the point if you have some data to prove it, but until then I don't see it. Furthermore, it doesn't change my argument. I'm not a Labour voter. I've no desire to help Labour, just to do what I firmly believe to be the right thing to do. It would immoral to oppose this simply because you don't like the way they will vote.
"Immoral" according to whom? You and a small band of Utopian internationalists? The vast majority of the Earth's governments carefully regulate both citizenship and the right to vote in order to avoid a destructive free-for-all. Your solipsistic adjudication that that practice is immoral carries no weight in the real world.
We've been over this point earlier. Universality is no measure of morality. Votes for women used to be a no-no pretty much everywhere. Slavery was universal until it wasn't. It's not like it suddenly became wrong, it was always wrong. And this idea that voting -- voting! -- can be described as a destructive free-for-all isbaffling. Just how low a view do you really have of immigrants?
Get off your soapbox and get a life.
Stick it up your hoop you thick fuck
What a pompous arsehole you are , same brain again and you would be dangerous.
If it mattered quite so deeply to them, they could become citizens, as is required to obtain voting rights in almost every country in the world.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
Why would they? Other parties have much to offer immigrants. I'm willing to concede the point if you have some data to prove it, but until then I don't see it. Furthermore, it doesn't change my argument. I'm not a Labour voter. I've no desire to help Labour, just to do what I firmly believe to be the right thing to do. It would immoral to oppose this simply because you don't like the way they will vote.
"Immoral" according to whom? You and a small band of Utopian internationalists? The vast majority of the Earth's governments carefully regulate both citizenship and the right to vote in order to avoid a destructive free-for-all. Your solipsistic adjudication that that practice is immoral carries no weight in the real world.
We've been over this point earlier. Universality is no measure of morality. Votes for women used to be a no-no pretty much everywhere. Slavery was universal until it wasn't. It's not like it suddenly became wrong, it was always wrong. And this idea that voting -- voting! -- can be described as a destructive free-for-all isbaffling. Just how low a view do you really have of immigrants?
Get off your soapbox and get a life.
Stick it up your hoop you thick fuck
Dont say that Malc doesnt have a hoop
Is that why he's full of shit?
Dear Dear diddums is really losing it, no doubt a spotty 16 year old thinking they are clever.
That's the thing for me. I accept that just because other places do or do not do a thing does not make it acceptable or unacceptable automatically, and personally I am fine with non citizens voting (as is well know we have plenty of non citizens in the country who are able to vote in any case), but it does mean I find it hard to call it immoral to not give non citizens voting rights, and unless someone has always had that problem there is a bit of a feel of maufactured outrage when it is very normal practice and well known, yet someone suddenly decides it is a huge deal.
Unless they always thought it was a huge deal, it's suspicious, in the same way those of us who have long supported some kind of PR system find recent converts at election times when one side discovers their opponents can win on limited percentages.
In the absence of knowing whether someone has long held a view or is a recent convert, you could just engage with the arguments for and against. It's probably more enlightening anyway.
Let's summarise the counter arguments I've received so far 1. Everyone else does it 2. There is a route to obtaining the vote (by spending a large amount of time and money on obtaining citizenship) 3. It's just fine (no defence, just an assertion) 4. Citizenship ought to be the basis for voting, not residency (I haven't really had an argument for why that should be the case, I've tried to put forward the opposite case) 5. You're mean 6. Get off your soapbox
Not exactly glittering defences, really. Apologies if I've missed any other arguments.
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government
You're just restating the issue, not justifying the discrimination.
What you call "discrimination", centuries of civic theory and practice call good sense.
Handing out the right to vote any resident will enormously incentivise large numbers of people to move here and vote for the nation's wealth to be "redistributed" in their direction...
This is rubbish. As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote. They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one.
Only once you have been living in that new country for a few years do you start wanting to have your small influence in how that country is run.
If it mattered quite so deeply to them, they could become citizens, as is required to obtain voting rights in almost every country in the world.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
Why would they? Other parties have much to offer immigrants. I'm willing to concede the point if you have some data to prove it, but until then I don't see it. Furthermore, it doesn't change my argument. I'm not a Labour voter. I've no desire to help Labour, just to do what I firmly believe to be the right thing to do. It would immoral to oppose this simply because you don't like the way they will vote.
"Immoral" according to whom? You and a small band of Utopian internationalists? The vast majority of the Earth's governments carefully regulate both citizenship and the right to vote in order to avoid a destructive free-for-all. Your solipsistic adjudication that that practice is immoral carries no weight in the real world.
We've been over this point earlier. Universality is no measure of morality. Votes for women used to be a no-no pretty much everywhere. Slavery was universal until it wasn't. It's not like it suddenly became wrong, it was always wrong. And this idea that voting -- voting! -- can be described as a destructive free-for-all isbaffling. Just how low a view do you really have of immigrants?
Get off your soapbox and get a life.
Stick it up your hoop you thick fuck
Dont say that Malc doesnt have a hoop
Is that why he's full of shit?
Dear Dear diddums is really losing it, no doubt a spotty 16 year old thinking they are clever.
I'll have you know I turned 17 more than a week ago
Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.
OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?
Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through. Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election
And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.
Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.
OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?
Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through. Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election
And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.
Because they are kids
People are adults at 16. Or have I missed something?
...It feels like you think countries are just the place where we live, and nationality doesn’t matter. That’s quite interesting...
I am not @Noo, but you do raise an interesting point. The upsurge in concepts such as the Anglosphere or CANZUK are based on the concept of loyalty to a tribe rather than a country or a sovereign state. Anglosphere patriots have transferred their loyalty to such abstract concepts and decoupled it from the Westphalian UK. This decoupling is not often discussed.
It would be interesting to see some polling on wider identities. I suppose it depends a bit on context, but I have always assumed humans are hard wired to want to organise locally and be part of something.
The later comments of that poster seem to be all about voting as a right to influence public services, which I think of as one level down from real national loyalty and the act of picking a Government. Hence, for instance, I entirely get why many Scots want independence over and above any form of Devo Max.
Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.
OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?
Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through. Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election
And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.
Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.
OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?
Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through. Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election
And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.
Because they are kids
People are adults at 16. Or have I missed something?
We can't vote till we're 18.
"Looked after" children are "looked after" till the age of 18.
Comments
I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1183376270731763714
I don't see a problem with this as the basis for a voting system.
Yet you think you should have a say and they should not.
And of course Labour would win a disproportionate share of their votes. Don't be disingenuous.
And Trump will be to blame.
(Apologies MD
Re Labour Leader, I too think RLB is the most likely.
I'm actually hoping that Matthew Pennycook rises from obscurity to get the gig though - slight accident on BF some years ago caused me to have a strong interest in his rise! (He actually doesn't look to total chump, although obviously has no chance in hell)
Beyond RLB I think you just need to look at who Momentum like - so the likes of Burgon may stand a better chance than someone with capability.
It seems to me that there's space in the race for a male candidate from the left - I've no idea who that might be though.
The only sure thing is that David Milliband is not going to give up his gravy train, seek election in some constiuency where he'll be opposed by the left, magically convince his colleagues that he hasn't sold out, and then smarm his way to everyone's hearts. I doubt he'll do a single one of these - let alone all.
KLE, Mr Dancer and a few PB Tories are not ones BTW
https://twitter.com/OneTenTwelve/status/1183406537370288129
You might be right.
Secondly, people who have British citizenship but who have lived abroad for over -- is it 15 years? -- don't have a vote in the UK any more. Why not?
And this is the man that this government will be sucking upto after we leave the EU .
The Tories claimed in multiple manifestos that they'd at least partly reduce the disparity and restore my right to vote but they're showing no signs of ever getting it done, so if Labour are going to straighten it out in the opposite direction that sounds fair to me.
I'm willing to concede the point if you have some data to prove it, but until then I don't see it. Furthermore, it doesn't change my argument. I'm not a Labour voter. I've no desire to help Labour, just to do what I firmly believe to be the right thing to do.
It would immoral to oppose this simply because you don't like the way they will vote.
What world? You mean that there is something outside the border? Canada? Mexico? Grand Cayman and the office that houses my offshore accounts?
Handing out the right to vote any resident will enormously incentivise large numbers of people to move here and vote for the nation's wealth to be "redistributed" in their direction...
Which means putting this into a legal framework hasn’t started . Don’t see how on earth this gets done before 31st October .
It ought to be understood that he genuinely doesn’t give a damn.
We’re not going to convince each other On here - the useful bit of the internet is coming to understand the other point of view. So, you’ve been childish, but It’s interesting to get a sense of your point of view on the issue itself. It feels like you think countries are just the place where we live, and nationality doesn’t matter. That’s quite interesting.
ETA: imo, ymmv, dyor.
Moving country can be difficult and disruptive, and requires a bit of get-up-and-go. It's not the sort of thing you do to have an easy time of it. Immigrants, in my experience, tend to work harder.
And this idea that voting -- voting! -- can be described as a destructive free-for-all isbaffling. Just how low a view do you really have of immigrants?
As for nationality not mattering as much as where you live -- absolutely. Of course it's residency that matters. That's where you pay your tax, and where you use public services. If you drive on the motorway, the road is either good or bad, the colour of your passport doesn't matter. If a house on your street catches fire, you don't have a special number to dial according to who lives there -- 999 if they look local, 998 if you think they might be a bit forrun -- it's all the same.
This is what your vote is for, to choose people who will run the country in which you live well. We have democracy because the more people who have an input into that, the better. It ensures people and perspectives aren't left out through omission or malice. Quite why you think that it's right to exclude a set of people from the choice of how they are governed is still a mystery to me.
Boris told Leo he really really wanted a deal and Leo believed him, told him it required a customs arrangement in Ireland and an opt-out to Stormont and Boris said yes in principle. Let's work on it. Positive mood music.
They're still working on something that satisfies Leo and satisfies the DUP. It's not going to happen.
So how is the failure to agree going to be framed by Boris?
Unless they always thought it was a huge deal, it's suspicious, in the same way those of us who have long supported some kind of PR system find recent converts at election times when one side discovers their opponents can win on limited percentages. This isn't some odd quirk of a system that people did not notice, or a power people could reasonably not know about (like the Home Secretary being able to rule on someone's citizenship), it is a pretty fundamental aspect, and if people are this angry about it why was it not a big deal before?
So on balance I'm fine with the idea, but the moralising about it is, for the most part, unconvincing.
Let's summarise the counter arguments I've received so far
1. Everyone else does it
2. There is a route to obtaining the vote (by spending a large amount of time and money on obtaining citizenship)
3. It's just fine (no defence, just an assertion)
4. Citizenship ought to be the basis for voting, not residency (I haven't really had an argument for why that should be the case, I've tried to put forward the opposite case)
5. You're mean
6. Get off your soapbox
Not exactly glittering defences, really. Apologies if I've missed any other arguments.
Only once you have been living in that new country for a few years do you start wanting to have your small influence in how that country is run.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ireland/en/european-parliament-calendar
The later comments of that poster seem to be all about voting as a right to influence public services, which I think of as one level down from real national loyalty and the act of picking a Government. Hence, for instance, I entirely get why many Scots want independence over and above any form of Devo Max.
"Looked after" children are "looked after" till the age of 18.