Though we will probably Brexit, I think it unlikely to be a grateful demos afterwards. This survey in the Observer is an interesting one. Even amongst Leavers there is a substantial minority who wished the whole business of the referendum had never happened.
Hannan's piece reads quite reasonable to me, except for the fact that Remainer May being in power dragged out the period of shock at Brexit until she was replaced. As soon as we had a Leaver as PM terms were indeed easily enough.
Er... When are you expecting Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands to follow us out of the EU?
The piece was written from the future which hasn't happened yet.
I'm not expecting anyone to immediately follow us out but I do think many are watching to see how Brexit goes. Right now, especially due to the self-inflicted dragging us down inflicted by Remainer May and Remainer MPs in Parliament Brexit looks like it might be more hassle than its worth but once we are out and Project Fear is shown to be the BS it always was then a smooth Brexit can fuel Euroscepticism in a good way. People should be in the EU because its what they want not because they're afraid there's no alternative.
I don't expect Ireland to follow us out, and probably not the Netherlands either - but I think Denmark and Sweden certainly might.
A new Hanseatic League always more economic sense than the EU...
How do you define a new Hanseatic League because the original one has no relevance to the current reality?
No - it’s been debunked multiple times. It’s a myth propagated by people who want to demonise Brexiteers as shady international financiers. I wonder what they are implying/assuming?
The tried & tested 'racists' formulation probably works here -
Most Leavers are not shady international financiers.
But almost all shady international financiers are Leavers.
No, they are not.
(There are plenty of international financiers who are pro-Remain. Like any other sector it is split)
No - it’s been debunked multiple times. It’s a myth propagated by people who want to demonise Brexiteers as shady international financiers. I wonder what they are implying/assuming?
The tried & tested 'racists' formulation probably works here -
Most Leavers are not shady international financiers.
But almost all shady international financiers are Leavers.
No, they are not.
(There are plenty of international financiers who are pro-Remain. Like any other sector it is split)
Yeah that's my experience too. I've also noticed quite a lot of Leave voters who've changed their mind in this sector. Successful traders need to know when to liquidate their position.
I'm tempted by the 70-75% band. Cummings won the referendum by getting a lot of traditional non voters to vote through a clever social media campaign. I am sure that he will be using the same tricks again to save their vote this time. Just as February 74 had the "who runs Britain" argument I think that Brexit has the potential to squeeze a few more voters out.
He will be disappointed. Anecdotal, yes, but my traditional non voter acquaintances who voted in 2016 have no changed their tune about not voting again since Boris and Cummings started running things. They're furious at MPs for not doing as they were told and promised and see no point in voting in a referendum or GE because they still wont ever let us Brexit.
I think the 'one off' pitch got more people out for the referendum but wont elevate the GE turnout any. Its the same pitch as always- you must for this party or there will be a disaster. Same old same old.
"As ever with Johnson, there are pragmatic reasons for finally letting Scotland go, which resonate with an almost frightening level of personal ambition. The departure for good of all Scottish MPs would make it almost impossible for Labour to entertain any prospect of power in the foreseeable future. This would leave him virtually unopposed as prime minister of England for a generation."
There seems to be a lot more support for Scottish than English independence on this site but both are equally justified.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
At risk of sounding like that nutter Justin, the British Empire reached its greatest extent the year after universal manhood suffrage was granted.
Though we will probably Brexit, I think it unlikely to be a grateful demos afterwards. This survey in the Observer is an interesting one. Even amongst Leavers there is a substantial minority who wished the whole business of the referendum had never happened.
Hannan's piece reads quite reasonable to me, except for the fact that Remainer May being in power dragged out the period of shock at Brexit until she was replaced. As soon as we had a Leaver as PM terms were indeed easily enough.
Er... When are you expecting Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands to follow us out of the EU?
Hannan is a fruitcake
Of course. But @Philip_Thompson (for all I disagree with him) is usually more reasoned in his thinking.
Yes he is but he does get a bit carried away at times.
And he's the most repetitive poster PB has ever experienced since the late Plato discovered her fondness for Trump.
No - it’s been debunked multiple times. It’s a myth propagated by people who want to demonise Brexiteers as shady international financiers. I wonder what they are implying/assuming?
The tried & tested 'racists' formulation probably works here -
Most Leavers are not shady international financiers.
But almost all shady international financiers are Leavers.
No, they are not.
(There are plenty of international financiers who are pro-Remain. Like any other sector it is split)
I don’t see the Lib Dem bill going anywhere because Labour will try and amend it .
And then if the SNP and Lib Dems don’t back the Amendments will use it against them .
There’s a conversation to be had over 16 and 17 year olds , on the issue of EU nationals voting this is far more complicated .
No EU country allows anyone but nationals of that country to vote in elections , there are just a few exceptions in the UK regarding nationals from Cyprus and Malta .
And Rep of Ireland.
Yes thanks for that . I think trying to amend a bill with all sorts of things is simply a way of Labour avoiding an election .
The Lib Dem Bill is really designed though for the EU , so saying we want an election and one is likely and please give us the longer extension .
So far Macron has been trying to help Johnson but if an election isn’t called and then he says he’s not bringing the WAIB back then I think that’s really going to annoy him and the rest of the EU .
I think you're right. Hes not helping them at present as hes given up on getting out before January, which Macron at least would prefer. The silk over the bill is basically undermining Macrons attempts to persuade others to a shorter extension since Boris is not showing he is trying to pass anything. An indication there will be an election is all they need.
Hammond is being given a free run. The LDs are standing aside
Is that wise?
I suppose it maximises the probability of them getting a Remainer elected.
But on most other topics he’s a conservative.
I don’t know his seat - assume it is safe otherwise strategy above wouldn’t make sense?
I was always taught to vote for the candidate not the party. Someone taking a principled stand against whips for what they believe in is something I applaud and think parliament would be a far better place if MPs did this more regularly. (I accept this is nowadays a minority view and many people even think they are solely backing a party manifesto not an MP, others are just looking for a cypher for reflecting voters thoughts).
I think it is in this spirt that they should be giving him a free run. I would have encouraged the same on other issues such as the David Davis by election on civil liberties.
Although I am precisely the kind of “Remainiac” Carswell wants hounded out of the country, I don’t think it is reasonable to change the franchise all of a sudden.
I read it as Brexit blockers - in Parliament - not people who don’t like Brexit
People like you may campaign against it but it’s not the same as “blocking” it because (no offence) you don’t have that power
So you can campaign against it, but as soon as you start becoming effective you are a traitor and need to be chucked out of the country? Got it!
I can't speak for Carswell, but there are two characteristics of certain MPs right now that I find reprehensible:
1) those who stood for parliament in 2017 on a manifesto of implementing the referendum result and who now refuse to do so, using various fig leafs (the deal not protecting workers' rights being especially egregious) 2) those who have consistently voted against the deal, against no deal, but wouldn't contemplate revoking
I don't like the SNP, but at least they're internally consistent. Ditto the LD's new policy of revoking without a second referendum. The ERG are specifically opposing deal because they think they can force no deal, which is mad but at least coherent. Labour and the Hammond squad have behaved appallingly.
No - it’s been debunked multiple times. It’s a myth propagated by people who want to demonise Brexiteers as shady international financiers. I wonder what they are implying/assuming?
The tried & tested 'racists' formulation probably works here -
Most Leavers are not shady international financiers.
But almost all shady international financiers are Leavers.
No, they are not.
(There are plenty of international financiers who are pro-Remain. Like any other sector it is split)
Though we will probably Brexit, I think it unlikely to be a grateful demos afterwards. This survey in the Observer is an interesting one. Even amongst Leavers there is a substantial minority who wished the whole business of the referendum had never happened.
Hannan's piece reads quite reasonable to me, except for the fact that Remainer May being in power dragged out the period of shock at Brexit until she was replaced. As soon as we had a Leaver as PM terms were indeed easily enough.
Er... When are you expecting Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands to follow us out of the EU?
The piece was written from the future which hasn't happened yet.
I'm not expecting anyone to immediately follow us out but I do think many are watching to see how Brexit goes. Right now, especially due to the self-inflicted dragging us down inflicted by Remainer May and Remainer MPs in Parliament Brexit looks like it might be more hassle than its worth but once we are out and Project Fear is shown to be the BS it always was then a smooth Brexit can fuel Euroscepticism in a good way. People should be in the EU because its what they want not because they're afraid there's no alternative.
I don't expect Ireland to follow us out, and probably not the Netherlands either - but I think Denmark and Sweden certainly might.
A new Hanseatic League always more economic sense than the EU...
How do you define a new Hanseatic League because the original one has no relevance to the current reality?
It probably looks a bit like the European Economic Community?
Whilst, again, the issues are not directly proportionate, I find it a tad hypocritical that those, rightly, criticising attempts to rush through legislation without proper scrutiny, are also promising to enact a significant change to the voting franchise as a retaliation for an early GE, without proper debate or scrutiny. What other changes could future governments, red and blue, bring in with a quick amendment to the FTPA?
A personal endorsement from Trump, in person, in London, a week before the election? Grade A kryptonite.
I agree with this and would expect Trump to receive a polite request from Boris not to comment on the GE.
In the same way Obama waded in to the referendum campaign backfired so would an endorsement from Trump.
Trump would probably need to be told he is so awesome they want to save his endorsement for the last day, then give him the wrong date, otherwise he will be asked and unable to hold back.
"On the 11th, the seafront railway station at Dawlish (Devon) was partially demolished by heavy seas and on the same day, two lorries travelling along the M1 motorway in Bedfordshire were blown off the road."
"In most of southern England monthly rainfall was more than double the average... and on the 8th, 9th and 10th falls exceeding 50mm in 24 hours contributed to local flooding in parts of the Midlands and southern England."
"Snow or sleet fell at times during the first two weeks and again on the last two days, mostly on high ground in the north... between the 6th and 8th undrifted depths of 8 to 15 cm occurred in parts of North Wales, northern England and Scotland and in the north-west Highlands 15 to 20 cm of snow were measured at a few places."
I'm sure the media would go absolutely bananas if any snow at all fell on an election day, as on February 28th 1974.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
I think outside a few exceptions we treat 16 year olds as children, so we should eliminate the exceptions rather than add another exception by giving them the vote.
If we want to treat them as adults then the exceptions where we treat them as children need eliminating, and our overall attitude to adolescents needs to change- we treat people who are voting age a bit like kids and shouldn't, and if we think 16 year olds are adults we should act like it.
Not treat them like adults with a few things but kids the rest of the time.
OT. The best paid English rugby players get paid less in a year than Raheem Sterling gets in a week but they've got a much better chance of marrying into the Royal family.
No - it’s been debunked multiple times. It’s a myth propagated by people who want to demonise Brexiteers as shady international financiers. I wonder what they are implying/assuming?
The tried & tested 'racists' formulation probably works here -
Most Leavers are not shady international financiers.
But almost all shady international financiers are Leavers.
No, they are not.
(There are plenty of international financiers who are pro-Remain. Like any other sector it is split)
You’re an expert on the shady ones ?
Are there any non shady ones
We have the example of Charles who is a paragon of virtue.
Hammond is being given a free run. The LDs are standing aside
So that was 3,765 votes last time.
Compared to the Tories 31,436
That assumes that all the Tory voters from GE2017 in this strong Remain seat will stick with Johnson's party. Wishful thinking.
No it doesn't, it is just numbers for just the starting point. It assumes nothing and shows the swing required.
If 60% of last time's CON voters backed the Conservatives this time and 40% went for Hammond ... ... and if all LD voters go for Hammond [a strong assumption]
then we would see: Con 18,862 Hammond 16,339
So Hammond needs to pick up more than that to win.
Lib Dems and SNP are offering the Tories an election on a plate. Are they really going to say no?
No.
Its astute game playing, as infuriating as playing games is all around. He demands a GE, they say fine but on a different day. Is he really able to say 'sorry, no GE then"? Does he want one or not?
And since he says he wont try for Brexit with no GE hes stuck if he doesnt accept.
Not impressed with Cleverly on Marr. Why not just say "we'll consider the Lib Dem/SNP proposal, but on Monday they have the chance to vote for an election etc. etc."
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
There is a technical reason why turnout has tended to be high for February elections in the past - the fact that new electoral registers came into effect in the middle of that month and were then at their most uptodate. They were drawn up on basis of residence the previous mid- October. As the year progressed beyond February , people passed away or moved to other areas etc so that it became steadily more difficult to achieve the same turnout level. However, I believe the system of registration was changed some years ago and the register is now constantly updated on a rolling basis.
Typical Tory, Tory party full of crooks but always "look a squirrel", a non politician , non SNP member. Toom Tabard just cannot help her exile bitterness get the better of her. Last thing we need is foreigners whinging about Scotland from afar, look to your own woes Scotland is very happy with the SNP.
No - it’s been debunked multiple times. It’s a myth propagated by people who want to demonise Brexiteers as shady international financiers. I wonder what they are implying/assuming?
The tried & tested 'racists' formulation probably works here -
Most Leavers are not shady international financiers.
But almost all shady international financiers are Leavers.
No, they are not.
(There are plenty of international financiers who are pro-Remain. Like any other sector it is split)
You’re an expert on the shady ones ?
Are there any non shady ones
We have the example of Charles who is a paragon of virtue.
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
OT. The best paid English rugby players get paid less in a year than Raheem Sterling gets in a week but they've got a much better chance of marrying into the Royal family.
I would rather be the fan dancer and take the money.
Not impressed with Cleverly on Marr. Why not just say "we'll consider the Lib Dem/SNP proposal, but on Monday they have the chance to vote for an election etc. etc."
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Scotland, as a new state, would not be part of the EU.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
They will not ever close the door. Once that became clear their irritation at things dragging on became nothing but noise.
The EU taught us that threatening to shoot yourself in the foot is not a plausible threat, even if it can be a bit disconcerting. Exactly the same applies to them choosing no deal over an extension.
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Will they get past the barbed wire and machine gun emplacements though.
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Scotland, as a new state, would not be part of the EU.
It wouldn't take long for accession to be realised though. They've already aligned with the acquis communautaire so it should be, to coin a phrase, 'the easiest deal in history'.
Speaking of organs, is your op this week, or have I got that wrong? Best of luck, hope it goes well and you come back reinvigorated.
Thanks but Its off for now.
They decided after my pre op that they wanted to give the various medication changes a bit longer to do their job. So its postponed too many Comorbities for now.
At least I will be able to sit out the GE canvassing with a good excuse
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
What an establishment bellend he was then
Oddly, he would have disagreed with you. He suggested this precisely because he noted that one person, one vote meant that people tended to vote for the same bunch of crooks, ooops, politicians and the civil servants therefore dominated civic society. He also spent most of his later life slagging off politicians based on the crash of R101 (he was deputy chief engineer of its rival R100).
Speaking of organs, is your op this week, or have I got that wrong? Best of luck, hope it goes well and you come back reinvigorated.
Thanks but Its off for now.
They decided after my pre op that they wanted to give the various medication changes a bit longer to do their job. So its postponed too many Comorbities for now.
At least I will be able to sit out the GE canvassing with a good excuse
That sucks. Hope things get put right quickly so it can go ahead.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
When I was 16 I thought nothing of scaling tall buildings (which is not the case now) but OTOH I was also very interested in politics.
So I think I would have welcomed the opportunity to vote.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
An electoral heptahlon. I like it! I wonder what a modern version for Britain would look like?
Swinson and Blackford both have mythological problems on this as well. The Coalition and the 1979 VoNC will both be evoked if those two parties help Boris get his Winter Brexit election. If Boris wins and then implements Brexit it will create a new and powerful mythology for Labour activists. Clearly there are no good options left but I did raise bith eyebrows when I saw the report.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
Off the top of my head....
1) Uk citizen 2) Uk resident for last 5 consecutive years (any nationality including UK) 3) 200 hrs involvement in charity or volunteering in last 12 months 4) Paid any NI in last 12 months 5) Passed 5 GCSEs or equivalent
Not impressed with Cleverly on Marr. Why not just say "we'll consider the Lib Dem/SNP proposal, but on Monday they have the chance to vote for an election etc. etc."
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
I like simplicity. Try this:
TAXPAYER FRANCHISE 1) Do you directly pay a government-imposed tax? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE 1) Are you a living adult? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
What an establishment bellend he was then
Oddly, he would have disagreed with you. He suggested this precisely because he noted that one person, one vote meant that people tended to vote for the same bunch of crooks, ooops, politicians and the civil servants therefore dominated civic society. He also spent most of his later life slagging off politicians based on the crash of R101 (he was deputy chief engineer of its rival R100).
Oh, and he hated banks.
Shute was a very odd bird (and a pretty good engineer), but he was certainly not establishment. And one can hardly apply today’s judgments to someone born in 1899.
One should note that those responsible for the R101 died in it...
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
In the wet? Dreams of someone dying in an opium den. I liked his books.
"As ever with Johnson, there are pragmatic reasons for finally letting Scotland go, which resonate with an almost frightening level of personal ambition. The departure for good of all Scottish MPs would make it almost impossible for Labour to entertain any prospect of power in the foreseeable future. This would leave him virtually unopposed as prime minister of England for a generation."
There seems to be a lot more support for Scottish than English independence on this site but both are equally justified.
I don't agree. Scottish independence is in part motivated by Scotland frequently getting governments it doesn't want. How often does that happen in England? That's not saying there's no case for it, just that one of the justifications is missing for England but present for Scotland.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
SNIP
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
What an establishment bellend he was then
Oddly, he would have disagreed with you. He suggested this precisely because he noted that one person, one vote meant that people tended to vote for the same bunch of crooks, ooops, politicians and the civil servants therefore dominated civic society. He also spent most of his later life slagging off politicians based on the crash of R101 (he was deputy chief engineer of its rival R100).
Oh, and he hated banks.
He had a point for sure , but the ne'er do wells he wanted to be allowed the vote were worse than the stupid public.
Why are the Conseravtives turning down the Lib-Dem/SNP general election idea?
Apparently the opposition turning down the Tories offer was undemocratic and cowardly. I await those making those claims similarly criticising the Bluekips, but expect there will be some explanation why it is instead now heroic, patriotic and a reflection of the voters mandate to now not have an election.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
I like simplicity. Try this:
TAXPAYER FRANCHISE 1) Do you directly pay a government-imposed tax? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE 1) Are you a living adult? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
(all options assume British citizenship)
Taxpayer franchise is incredibly dangerous. Since the government decides who pays tax, the government decides who gets the vote.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
I like simplicity. Try this:
TAXPAYER FRANCHISE 1) Do you directly pay a government-imposed tax? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE 1) Are you a living adult? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
(all options assume British citizenship)
Taxpayer franchise is incredibly dangerous. Since the government decides who pays tax, the government decides who gets the vote.
No it isn't.
No representation without taxation is a fair principle.
Apparently the opposition turning down the Tories offer was undemocratic and cowardly. I await those making those claims similarly criticising the Bluekips, but expect there will be some explanation why it is instead now heroic, patriotic and a reflection of the voters mandate to now not have an election.
I can't see the explanation, it seems moronic to me.
Unless the plan is to run down the clock to 31/01 and panic parliament in to voting the treaty through.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
I like simplicity. Try this:
TAXPAYER FRANCHISE 1) Do you directly pay a government-imposed tax? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE 1) Are you a living adult? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
(all options assume British citizenship)
Taxpayer franchise is incredibly dangerous. Since the government decides who pays tax, the government decides who gets the vote.
Not sure anyone Ive voted for has ever won their seat in a GE and I have voted Tory, Labour, LD and Green.......would take no vote no tax. How many of us wouldnt?
Comments
I suppose it maximises the probability of them getting a Remainer elected.
But on most other topics he’s a conservative.
I don’t know his seat - assume it is safe otherwise strategy above wouldn’t make sense?
I think the 'one off' pitch got more people out for the referendum but wont elevate the GE turnout any. Its the same pitch as always- you must for this party or there will be a disaster. Same old same old.
EICIPM Tory Swinson EICIPM Tory Swinson EICIPM Tory Swinson EICIPM Tory Swinson EICIPM Tory Swinson EICIPM Tory Swinson EICIPM Tory Swinson EICIPM Tory Swinson
7.3% LD
Bit of a swing required if Hammond is seeking to hold the seat as a quasi-LD
Makes the seat a double-dip for the Tories because if a deal goes through Hammond will be back under the whip I would expect.
But yes, we’ve Fritzed it up now.
Still unnecessarily convoluted though.
I think it is in this spirt that they should be giving him a free run. I would have encouraged the same on other issues such as the David Davis by election on civil liberties.
1) those who stood for parliament in 2017 on a manifesto of implementing the referendum result and who now refuse to do so, using various fig leafs (the deal not protecting workers' rights being especially egregious)
2) those who have consistently voted against the deal, against no deal, but wouldn't contemplate revoking
I don't like the SNP, but at least they're internally consistent. Ditto the LD's new policy of revoking without a second referendum. The ERG are specifically opposing deal because they think they can force no deal, which is mad but at least coherent. Labour and the Hammond squad have behaved appallingly.
"On the 11th, the seafront railway station at Dawlish (Devon) was partially demolished by heavy seas and on the same day, two lorries travelling along the M1 motorway in Bedfordshire were blown off the road."
"In most of southern England monthly rainfall was more than double the average... and on the 8th, 9th and 10th falls exceeding 50mm in 24 hours contributed to local flooding in parts of the Midlands and southern England."
"Snow or sleet fell at times during the first two weeks and again on the last two days, mostly on high ground in the north... between the 6th and 8th undrifted depths of 8 to 15 cm occurred in parts of North Wales, northern England and Scotland and in the north-west Highlands 15 to 20 cm of snow were measured at a few places."
I'm sure the media would go absolutely bananas if any snow at all fell on an election day, as on February 28th 1974.
5/ There’s a trial starting in January.....
If we want to treat them as adults then the exceptions where we treat them as children need eliminating, and our overall attitude to adolescents needs to change- we treat people who are voting age a bit like kids and shouldn't, and if we think 16 year olds are adults we should act like it.
Not treat them like adults with a few things but kids the rest of the time.
Look two very average teams, England will not be worried about either of these.
Doubt it myself - although it depends on definitions because I'm sure Leave did pick up the Del boy vote.
And why has Marr got 2 Tories on anyway
If he can make the UK general election about himself for one day he will do so.
If 60% of last time's CON voters backed the Conservatives this time and 40% went for Hammond ...
... and if all LD voters go for Hammond [a strong assumption]
then we would see:
Con 18,862
Hammond 16,339
So Hammond needs to pick up more than that to win.
Its astute game playing, as infuriating as playing games is all around. He demands a GE, they say fine but on a different day. Is he really able to say 'sorry, no GE then"? Does he want one or not?
And since he says he wont try for Brexit with no GE hes stuck if he doesnt accept.
Last thing we need is foreigners whinging about Scotland from afar, look to your own woes Scotland is very happy with the SNP.
1) Basic
2) Education - anyone with a university degree
3) Earning a living abroad for two years
4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing
5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954)
6) Being an official of a recognised church
7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
They decided after my pre op that they wanted to give the various medication changes a bit longer to do their job. So its postponed too many Comorbities for now.
At least I will be able to sit out the GE canvassing with a good excuse
Oh, and he hated banks.
So I think I would have welcomed the opportunity to vote.
Hopefully things will be less vicious later in the day.
It is not just politicians who need to watch their language.
1) Uk citizen
2) Uk resident for last 5 consecutive years (any nationality including UK)
3) 200 hrs involvement in charity or volunteering in last 12 months
4) Paid any NI in last 12 months
5) Passed 5 GCSEs or equivalent
Leave 49.85% Remain 50.15%
TAXPAYER FRANCHISE
1) Do you directly pay a government-imposed tax? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE
1) Are you a living adult? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
(all options assume British citizenship)
One should note that those responsible for the R101 died in it...
Yes !
Ballsy.
What are they playing at?
That's not saying there's no case for it, just that one of the justifications is missing for England but present for Scotland.
No representation without taxation is a fair principle.
Unless the plan is to run down the clock to 31/01 and panic parliament in to voting the treaty through.
Bottler Boris? Surely not!