There should be an additional top-up to FPTP based on how many total votes were cast across the entire election. Then in a safe seat, voting for a party that's got no chance of winning in FPTP is still somewhat relevant on the top-up system.
A certain number of additional MP's would then be determined in the proportion upon which the parties were voted for on a national basis.
I guess similar to the Holyrood list vote but (a) not split into regions, (b) not voted for separately and (c) not gerrymandered to unproportionally over-represent the parties who got relatively few votes.
That would stop e.g. the hypothetical instance of a party losing every single constituency by one vote and getting no representation at all - nationally they would have piled up a significant fraction of the total vote and should get some representation for that.
It would also go some way to making elections too determined by geography alone.
Would need to work out exactly what the split between FPTP and additional top up MPs would need to be to be reasonable and fair.
That is my Sunday morning not-really-thought-about-it-its-probably-stupid idea. It's probably already a system that has a name.
It was pretty much what Blair's Jenkins Commission recommended, which Labour had committed to implement, until it reneged in its promise, which taking the long view was as big a mistake by Labour as were some of the LibDems' decisions in coalition.
In an alternative universe somewhere, Jenkins was implemented, and we never had to endure the false Tory majorities that led to Brexit, and the rest is alternative history...
But Brexit was backed by 52%...
This is my problem. Some people want a voting system because they think it will produce outcomes that they support.
Quite - like the idiot Roger who thinks PR will prevent Tory governments. All over the world different electoral systems produce a mix of left and right wing governments as would happen here if we changed the system. Many who now try different voting options under FPTP would vote differently under PR - and the result would probably be the same - a left leaning electorate would produce a left-leaning government and vice versa. People currently assume that all of the current non-Tory votes would be exactly the same under PR. I believe they'd be disappointed. A PR system would simply enhance the message for Conservatives and centrists to avoid risking preferences for SNP or LD and risk letting Labour in. In other words voter behaviour adapts to the electoral system.
When commenting on voting systems it is hard not to be partisan. It is always tempting to argue for systems that favour your own party.
Standing back, without arguing for a particular voting system, I would argue the following principles are sound and democratic.
1. Voters in a constituency should have a choice between candidates from the same party. This happens now in multi-member council seats. It doesn't happen in closed list systems or the present system which gives too much power to parties and party activists.
2. Candidates should be linked to and represent a geography. This happens now with the current parliamentary system. It half happens with the Scottish and GLA systems.
3. The number of seats should be roughly proportional to the number of votes. It is hard to argue against this on democratic grounds, only on partisan grounds.
Having first agreed the principles (these or similar) you can then dispassionately compare various possible systems against the principles. Otherwise it's all partisan venting.
My conversations with people inside government suggest that many ministers appreciate that [vaccination] gloating is unedifying and self-defeating. At the same time, a Brexiter cabinet finds it hard to resist the temptation to exploit the EU’s distress for partisan advantage. The NHS-delivered distribution of the vaccine is the only aspect of the handling of the crisis in which this government can claim to have a record that is impressive. Brexiters want to claim that success, however bogusly, as a justification for their experiment. There are also Tories who believe that a steady drumbeat of cross-Channel conflict serves their electoral interests by keeping the Brexit vote aroused and distracted from the punishing damage the rupture is inflicting on the economy.
A government with an enlightened perspective on the long-term interests of Britain would see value in offering expressions of sympathy and gestures of solidarity with the EU at its time of severe trial. That could generate a lot of goodwill among European voters and leaders. It might be the more effective in winning friends for Britain for being so unexpected from a Brexiter government. Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, instead prefers to play tit for tat.
There is a problem with this attempt by ministers to seize the title deeds to the moral high ground. Their behaviour has robbed them of any claims on it. No one is worse qualified to lecture others about contract-breaking than a member of Mr Johnson’s government.
The chances of avoiding a mutually destructive struggle with the EU over vaccine supplies would be much better had Britain a prime minister who was regarded as a trustworthy international partner by his peer group. An escalation into a full-blown “vaccine war” between Britain and the EU would be a disaster for both on many levels.
Vaccine nationalism is already a dimension of this crisis. It would set a terrible example to the world if countries that advertise themselves as mature, sophisticated and internationalist democracies were to unleash a vaccine war in Europe. Britain and her near neighbours are going to have to live and work with each other long after Covid-19 has become history. The UK’s security and prosperity still depend in great part on what happens within the EU. It cannot be in the EU’s interests to have permanently toxified relations with such a substantial country on its border. A vaccine war would be a conflict without a winner, only many losers.
The government has done nothing of the sort. This is an exercise of trying to justify the idiotic position of the EU and falsely accusing the UK government of vaccine nationalism.
Rawnsley has started with his conclusion of "must be the fault of brexit supporters" and then fit the narrative to it and made up "evidence" based on his feelings about the subject to get there. It's a load of old rubbish dressed up as insight.
In this instance, it's the EU who are behaving like the jilted ex.
There should be an additional top-up to FPTP based on how many total votes were cast across the entire election. Then in a safe seat, voting for a party that's got no chance of winning in FPTP is still somewhat relevant on the top-up system.
A certain number of additional MP's would then be determined in the proportion upon which the parties were voted for on a national basis.
I guess similar to the Holyrood list vote but (a) not split into regions, (b) not voted for separately and (c) not gerrymandered to unproportionally over-represent the parties who got relatively few votes.
That would stop e.g. the hypothetical instance of a party losing every single constituency by one vote and getting no representation at all - nationally they would have piled up a significant fraction of the total vote and should get some representation for that.
It would also go some way to making elections too determined by geography alone.
Would need to work out exactly what the split between FPTP and additional top up MPs would need to be to be reasonable and fair.
That is my Sunday morning not-really-thought-about-it-its-probably-stupid idea. It's probably already a system that has a name.
It was pretty much what Blair's Jenkins Commission recommended, which Labour had committed to implement, until it reneged in its promise, which taking the long view was as big a mistake by Labour as were some of the LibDems' decisions in coalition.
In an alternative universe somewhere, Jenkins was implemented, and we never had to endure the false Tory majorities that led to Brexit, and the rest is alternative history...
But Brexit was backed by 52%...
This is my problem. Some people want a voting system because they think it will produce outcomes that they support.
In any universe where Parliament wasn't elected by a FPTP system Cameron wouldn't have got an unexpected majority in 2015 which would have resulted in another coalition where the EU referendum would be quietly shelved.
The irony is that given the mess the EU has made of vaccines (even the New York Times has an article on it today) leaving was probably for the best.
FWIW I find French presidential system really interesting, in the way that it gives an initial open voice to minorities views, but then forces the choice. On the down side it has given a platform to Le Pen, but at the same time it has unlocked big party monopolies. It will be interesting so see what happens in the upcoming election.
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
Most of those cheering FPTP as the creator of good and strong government, were enraged by Blair's third term "majority" on 36% of the vote.
Nationally in the UK, FPTP is a system that avoids Italian style inertia. But which is worse, Italian style inertia, or 64% of the population without a voice in government?
And it is remarkable how quickly Italy or Israel gets mentioned in such discussions, while the happy and stable Scandinavian democracies rarely get considered.
Italian politics is unstable because of Italian history and, well, because they are Italian.
As a proponent of proportional voting systems, I am happy to take the rough with the smooth. 2017 would have given Mrs May a massive pro-hard-Brexit mandate under a PR system, and yet under FPTP, no mandate for her Brexit means Brexit position. Not what I voted for, but it is what (I believe) a genuine 50% plus majority under PR voted for. Therefore fair, if nothing else.
So what did that branch of the Conservative Party do, when under their preferred electoral system they could not get their way? They claimed a "zombie parliament".
Shadow health secretary Jon Ashworth has said caution is needed for the pandemic response given the level of infections.
He told Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “That will mean, I’m afraid, that governments will have to have the power to impose restrictions where necessary.”
Ashworth said parts of the Coronavirus Act need to be “properly scrutinised” and he will press Health Secretary Matt Hancock to explain why they are needed, including on social care, but he acknowledged other parts are required.
Asked if he will be voting in favour, Ashworth described it as “complex” before adding: “We broadly support it, it ought to be properly scrutinised.”
Now, once the entire adult population has been vaccinated, we must ask why it is that the Government would still need "to have the power to impose restrictions where necessary." How could restrictions be regarded as necessary under such circumstances? What conceivable use would they be? Yes yes, I know, vaccine escaping variants and all that, but you could use that to justify precautionary measures against anything. Emergency powers in case of nuclear war or asteroid impact, anyone?
The entire point of the vaccination programme is to throw the kinds of Draconian measures we have been forced to live with for the past year in the dustbin and to learn to live with the virus (and the fact that it will still kill a certain number of people,) not to cave in to what another poster has succinctly described as the "Zero Covid psychopaths."
The Government seems to have taken this idea onboard, although given its established reputation for flip-flopping I can understand why the Covid Recovery Group are nervous. I think that the CRG are wrong to go too hard on ministers under the cover of "data, not dates" - the rationale behind the five-week gap between the unlocking steps has been clearly and satisfactorily explained, even if the baby steps are frustrating - but the extension of the Coronavirus Act all the way to October does not appear to be justified. As Mark Harper has rightly warned this morning, it gives the impression that the Government is keeping the full mechanisms of suppression in its back pocket, ready to bring them all back after the Summer holidays.
If the Act is to be extended then why not, therefore, until just until the end of August? By that point, based on the Government's timetable, every adult should've been offered at least one dose of the vaccine and had enough time for it to take effect, and we can be reasonably confident that all the clinically vulnerable, health and care workers and everyone over about the age of 40 will have had both shots. If some very limited measures (like masks on public transport, as distinct from locking us all up again for another six months) are needed as the threat of Covid+Flu looms next Winter, then surely these could be introduced through fresh specific legislation, or imposed using the public health laws that existed prior to the pandemic?
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
This "UK census" doesn't include Scotland as a part of the SNP differentiation policy (see Covid et al). I think we are doing our census next year. My wild guess is that Scotland may just be a bit more Christian than the rest of the UK (fewer immigrants from non Christian countries, quite a lot (proportionally) from Catholic ones, the wee Free nutters, etc) so that might just tip the balance.
I would actually have expected it to be less Christian overall, albeit probably also less Muslim and Jewish, but I could easily be wrong.
There are of course pockets of very strict Christian observance in Scotland in a way there no longer is in England or Wales, but they are very small.
Catholic church attendance in Scotland is booming on the back of a large influx of eastern Europeans, particularly Poles, who tend to be far more religious (and prone to drink driving and domestic violence, but there we are).
That is true of many parts of England as well though, especially rural areas.
You forget that the BHA nobbled that question last time round, as they want to pretend that they represent "non-religious".
They have quite a remarkable Parliamentary Network.
Plus of course they are popular rentagobs on TV and radio.
As are the NSS.
Lol. And yet we still have to put up with Platitude for the Day on Radio 4 every morning, still consisting almost entirely of religious contributors.
That has to be the most annoying thing on Radio 4- getting lectured in a happy clappy woke way that the god person then links somehow to religion (even though religion for centuries and even now is very unwoke) makes my blood boil as i drive up the A46 to work. Its as though the BBC is talking a 16th century format (only god people can lecture on morals) and applying super 2021 wokeness to the content. Sort of hell (pun intended) on earth (or at least hell on the A46)
It is the utter and complete incoherence of their thought processes that has my head coming into contact with the steering wheel at times. There are exceptions but if that is what passes for thought in religious circles...
IMHO, Thought for the Day undermines support for religion in the UK.
There should be an additional top-up to FPTP based on how many total votes were cast across the entire election. Then in a safe seat, voting for a party that's got no chance of winning in FPTP is still somewhat relevant on the top-up system.
A certain number of additional MP's would then be determined in the proportion upon which the parties were voted for on a national basis.
I guess similar to the Holyrood list vote but (a) not split into regions, (b) not voted for separately and (c) not gerrymandered to unproportionally over-represent the parties who got relatively few votes.
That would stop e.g. the hypothetical instance of a party losing every single constituency by one vote and getting no representation at all - nationally they would have piled up a significant fraction of the total vote and should get some representation for that.
It would also go some way to making elections too determined by geography alone.
Would need to work out exactly what the split between FPTP and additional top up MPs would need to be to be reasonable and fair.
That is my Sunday morning not-really-thought-about-it-its-probably-stupid idea. It's probably already a system that has a name.
It was pretty much what Blair's Jenkins Commission recommended, which Labour had committed to implement, until it reneged in its promise, which taking the long view was as big a mistake by Labour as were some of the LibDems' decisions in coalition.
In an alternative universe somewhere, Jenkins was implemented, and we never had to endure the false Tory majorities that led to Brexit, and the rest is alternative history...
But Brexit was backed by 52%...
This is my problem. Some people want a voting system because they think it will produce outcomes that they support.
In any universe where Parliament wasn't elected by a FPTP system Cameron wouldn't have got an unexpected majority in 2015 which would have resulted in another coalition where the EU referendum would be quietly shelved.
The irony is that given the mess the EU has made of vaccines (even the New York Times has an article on it today) leaving was probably for the best.
Given how advanced our negotiations with AstraZeneca were at the point when Germany suggested the EU take over its own procurement, and the sceptical view we would always have had about handing new powers over to the EU, I very much doubt that we'd have abandoned our procurement exercise in the way that Germany and France did. Far more likely we'd have continued with our own arrangements, as did Hungary from the outset and other EU countries more recently.
Shadow health secretary Jon Ashworth has said caution is needed for the pandemic response given the level of infections.
He told Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “That will mean, I’m afraid, that governments will have to have the power to impose restrictions where necessary.”
Ashworth said parts of the Coronavirus Act need to be “properly scrutinised” and he will press Health Secretary Matt Hancock to explain why they are needed, including on social care, but he acknowledged other parts are required.
Asked if he will be voting in favour, Ashworth described it as “complex” before adding: “We broadly support it, it ought to be properly scrutinised.”
Now, once the entire adult population has been vaccinated, we must ask why it is that the Government would still need "to have the power to impose restrictions where necessary." How could restrictions be regarded as necessary under such circumstances? What conceivable use would they be? Yes yes, I know, vaccine escaping variants and all that, but you could use that to justify precautionary measures against anything. Emergency powers in case of nuclear war or asteroid impact, anyone?
The entire point of the vaccination programme is to throw the kinds of Draconian measures we have been forced to live with for the past year in the dustbin and to learn to live with the virus (and the fact that it will still kill a certain number of people,) not to cave in to what another poster has succinctly described as the "Zero Covid psychopaths."
The Government seems to have taken this idea onboard, although given its established reputation for flip-flopping I can understand why the Covid Recovery Group are nervous. I think that the CRG are wrong to go too hard on ministers under the cover of "data, not dates" - the rationale behind the five-week gap between the unlocking steps has been clearly and satisfactorily explained, even if the baby steps are frustrating - but the extension of the Coronavirus Act all the way to October does not appear to be justified. As Mark Harper has rightly warned this morning, it gives the impression that the Government is keeping the full mechanisms of suppression in its back pocket, ready to bring them all back after the Summer holidays.
If the Act is to be extended then why not, therefore, until just until the end of August? By that point, based on the Government's timetable, every adult should've been offered at least one dose of the vaccine and had enough time for it to take effect, and we can be reasonably confident that all the clinically vulnerable, health and care workers and everyone over about the age of 40 will have had both shots. If some very limited measures (like masks on public transport, as distinct from locking us all up again for another six months) are needed as the threat of Covid+Flu looms next Winter, then surely these could be introduced through fresh specific legislation, or imposed using the public health laws that existed prior to the pandemic?
Yes. They could do so afresh quickly if needed as they wouldn't be writing it from scratch next time either. No need to retain.
@state_go_away thanks Max - is that for behind the camera studies as well as in front of the camera stuff as well? She does perform but her interest is in production more
Most of those cheering FPTP as the creator of good and strong government, were enraged by Blair's third term "majority" on 36% of the vote.
Nationally in the UK, FPTP is a system that avoids Italian style inertia. But which is worse, Italian style inertia, or 64% of the population without a voice in government?
And it is remarkable how quickly Italy or Israel gets mentioned in such discussions, while the happy and stable Scandinavian democracies rarely get considered.
Italian politics is unstable because of Italian history and, well, because they are Italian.
New Zealand now has PR too as of course does Germany and Spain and the Netherlands and Ireland
For me, the question is "which system maximises the number of voters who get their preferred choice elected?" FPTP doesn't do that. AV is actually worse, if AV resulted in a candidate who didn't receive the biggest number of first preferences getting in, you have actually increased the number of dissatisfied voters. STV in multi-member seats is better. The more members per seat, the more happy voters. It suffers from the problem mentioned above with AV, though. SNTV in multi-member seats is by definition the best system on my premise.
I was thinking how Sir Keir could solve the problem of him coming across so dull, & what I came up with was for someone else, or perhaps several other people, to do the hard sell of leader debates/election campaigning while he was the competent brains of the operation in the background. I think Theresa May tried that and it lost her the Conservatives majority though.
But it made me think that actually it isn’t that good an idea for the public to have presidential style tv debates inform them pre election, and they should be scrapped. Because being insincere but charismatic shouldn’t trump dull competence when it comes to being PM, but it does.
Maybe it would be better for Labour if they didn’t have a leader, but ruled by committee? The need for the manager to be flamboyant would be negated. An Alpha in charge of subordinates is so right wing
When commenting on voting systems it is hard not to be partisan. It is always tempting to argue for systems that favour your own party.
Standing back, without arguing for a particular voting system, I would argue the following principles are sound and democratic.
1. Voters in a constituency should have a choice between candidates from the same party. This happens now in multi-member council seats. It doesn't happen in closed list systems or the present system which gives too much power to parties and party activists.
2. Candidates should be linked to and represent a geography. This happens now with the current parliamentary system. It half happens with the Scottish and GLA systems.
3. The number of seats should be roughly proportional to the number of votes. It is hard to argue against this on democratic grounds, only on partisan grounds.
Having first agreed the principles (these or similar) you can then dispassionately compare various possible systems against the principles. Otherwise it's all partisan venting.
Wow talk about missing the barn door by a mile you seem to have missed the most important bit....
Voters should be able to have faith that the vote they cast is used to further the policies it was granted for.....something fptp mostly does but PR manifestly fails to do. Instead those policies you gave a guy a vote to push forward are horse traded away for a ministerial limo
The Conservatives are oddly fetishistic people nowadays, between the flag furore and this, just this week.
In the past, Conservatives were the pragmatists, chiding others for having fixed ideologies rather than horses for courses.
How times change.
I can remember when it was the tory party that led the charge against the National Front politcising the Union Flag... Now they are the spiritual home of the flag shaggers.
encourages big tents with a range of views inside a party. Much more likely to generate decisive governments.
Downsides Safe seats that are barely democratic Silencing of minority views limits meaningful choice
For me, in local government, the downsides exceed the benefits. For regional government such as Holyrood it is pretty evenly matched, you can make a case either way. For central government FPTP wins. Patel's one size fits all approach is just stupid.
Additional downsides:
Most votes don't count Most voters don't see any campaign to win their support Safe areas for the other party (and to a lesser extent for your own) can be taken for granted Policy choices and spending are directed toward electorally marginal areas Opinions that are geographically-based get over-represented and those that aren't get under-represented The party that 'wins' may not even be the one with the most support Majority power is given to minority views Opinions held by significant minorities can go completely or almost unrepresented (cf. Green Party) Encourages tactical voting and voting negatively, not healthy for our political debate Depresses turnout, as voting in many locations is perceived as a waste of time Places excessive power in small internal party cliques (selection and reselection committees) Forces a two-party system whether or not this best represents the diversity of views in the country Discourages diverse representation (in multi-member elections parties try to put forward diverse slates) Because boundaries are all-important this technical detail attracts huge attention with risk of gerrymandering Elections can be decided purely by the range of candidates who stand (the 'splitting the vote' problem) Tends toward more extreme politics, particularly if extreme views capture one of the larger parties Evidence that FPTP countries are more likely to go to war
Arguments against PR:
Hitler.
Godwin's law so soon!
Who may well have got a majority under FPTP and never needed to bamboozle the President and other parties into making him chancellor
I thought Godwin's Law was about accusing other people in a debate of being like Hitler.
To be honest, I don't know if FPTP would have prevented trouble. And actually, I wouldn't be too bothered if we shifted to PR (list rather than some preferential system that shuts out certain views). I doubt we'd end up with the same government all the time. For example, I'm pretty sure that Germany will get a different flavour of coalition this year, which will be interesting.
FPTP would probably have ensured a strong SPD government with bursts of Centre Party led alternatives.
So it might have prevented the rise of Hitler.
But actually the key factor in the rise of Hitler was the presidential system, which was elected under - ummm - AV.
The reality given the political and economic situation in inter-war Germany is that Hitler would have come to power anyway, whatever the voting system. So it was a cheap and false point in the argument.
A more interesting question is what history would have transpired had Hitler stuck to painting.
All political systems can be manipulated or even hijacked by scoundrels. If Johnson (or Blair in 1997) are (were) minded to make their premierships permanent they have (had) enough lap dogs to vote through bizarre parliamentary boundaries to prolong or bolster their governments.
There should be an additional top-up to FPTP based on how many total votes were cast across the entire election. Then in a safe seat, voting for a party that's got no chance of winning in FPTP is still somewhat relevant on the top-up system.
A certain number of additional MP's would then be determined in the proportion upon which the parties were voted for on a na That is my Sunday morning not-really-thought-about-it-its-probably-stupid idea. It's probably already a system that has a name.
It was pretty much what Blair's Jenkins Commission recommended, which Labour had committed to implement, until it reneged in its promise, which taking the long view was as big a mistake by Labour as were some of the LibDems' decisions in coalition.
In an alternative universe somewhere, Jenkins was implemented, and we never had to endure the false Tory majorities that led to Brexit, and the rest is alternative history...
But Brexit was backed by 52%...
This is my problem. Some people want a voting system because they think it will produce outcomes that they support.
In any universe where Parliament wasn't elected by a FPTP system Cameron wouldn't have got an unexpected majority in 2015 which would have resulted in another coalition where the EU referendum would be quietly shelved.
The irony is that given the mess the EU has made of vaccines (even the New York Times has an article on it today) leaving was probably for the best.
Given how advanced our negotiations with AstraZeneca were at the point when Germany suggested the EU take over its own procurement, and the sceptical view we would always have had about handing new powers over to the EU, I very much doubt that we'd have abandoned our procurement exercise in the way that Germany and France did. Far more likely we'd have continued with our own arrangements, as did Hungary from the outset and other EU countries more recently.
Actually, a PR election in 2015 would certainly have resulted in a referendum. UKIP would have had 80 or so seats and would have insisted on it, as a condition of supporting the Conservatives.
Shadow health secretary Jon Ashworth has said caution is needed for the pandemic response given the level of infections.
He told Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “That will mean, I’m afraid, that governments will have to have the power to impose restrictions where necessary.”
Ashworth said parts of the Coronavirus Act need to be “properly scrutinised” and he will press Health Secretary Matt Hancock to explain why they are needed, including on social care, but he acknowledged other parts are required.
Asked if he will be voting in favour, Ashworth described it as “complex” before adding: “We broadly support it, it ought to be properly scrutinised.”
Now, once the entire adult population has been vaccinated, we must ask why it is that the Government would still need "to have the power to impose restrictions where necessary." How could restrictions be regarded as necessary under such circumstances? What conceivable use would they be? Yes yes, I know, vaccine escaping variants and all that, but you could use that to justify precautionary measures against anything. Emergency powers in case of nuclear war or asteroid impact, anyone?
The entire point of the vaccination programme is to throw the kinds of Draconian measures we have been forced to live with for the past year in the dustbin and to learn to live with the virus (and the fact that it will still kill a certain number of people,) not to cave in to what another poster has succinctly described as the "Zero Covid psychopaths."
The Government seems to have taken this idea onboard, although given its established reputation for flip-flopping I can understand why the Covid Recovery Group are nervous. I think that the CRG are wrong to go too hard on ministers under the cover of "data, not dates" - the rationale behind the five-week gap between the unlocking steps has been clearly and satisfactorily explained, even if the baby steps are frustrating - but the extension of the Coronavirus Act all the way to October does not appear to be justified. As Mark Harper has rightly warned this morning, it gives the impression that the Government is keeping the full mechanisms of suppression in its back pocket, ready to bring them all back after the Summer holidays.
If the Act is to be extended then why not, therefore, until just until the end of August? By that point, based on the Government's timetable, every adult should've been offered at least one dose of the vaccine and had enough time for it to take effect, and we can be reasonably confident that all the clinically vulnerable, health and care workers and everyone over about the age of 40 will have had both shots. If some very limited measures (like masks on public transport, as distinct from locking us all up again for another six months) are needed as the threat of Covid+Flu looms next Winter, then surely these could be introduced through fresh specific legislation, or imposed using the public health laws that existed prior to the pandemic?
Lisa Nandy, on Rawnsley, in a very measure, straight-forward interview said every much the same as Ashworth. As, of course, one might expect.
It's too early to scrap everything, and, as the PHE Head of Immunisation said, there may well be a 'new normal'.
The Exhaustive Ballot IS NOT "Quasi-AV" - it's the, er, Exhaustive Ballot!
Consider - in AV, you get to rank every candidate in "round 1" and the "method" does the rest, whereas in Tory Leadership Elections, you can only vote for ONE candidate in each round, enabling you to change your preference(s) DURING the election.
That's the UK never going back then if that happens.
Agree.
Yet one thing I want to see is a more mature polity for the EU - not political appointments and Buggin's Turn. I have my preferences, but movement is more important.
I was thinking how Sir Keir could solve the problem of him coming across so dull, & what I came up with was for someone else, or perhaps several other people, to do the hard sell of leader debates/election campaigning while he was the competent brains of the operation in the background. I think Theresa May tried that and it lost her the Conservatives majority though.
But it made me think that actually it isn’t that good an idea for the public to have presidential style tv debates inform them pre election, and they should be scrapped. Because being insincere but charismatic shouldn’t trump dull competence when it comes to being PM, but it does.
Maybe it would be better for Labour if they didn’t have a leader, but ruled by committee? The need for the manager to be flamboyant would be negated
'Because being insincere but charismatic shouldn’t trump dull competence when it comes to being PM, but it does.'
That may usually be the case but not always, otherwise the dull Attlee would not have beaten the more charismatic Churchill in 1945, the dull Heath would not have beaten the more charismatic Wilson in 1970 and the dull Major would not have beaten the more charismatic Kinnock in 1992 and even in 2017 the dull May won more seats than the more charismatic Corbyn.
Internationally too in 2012 the dull Hollande beat the more charismatic Sarkozy in France and in 2020 the dull Biden beat the more charismatic Trump in the USA
When commenting on voting systems it is hard not to be partisan. It is always tempting to argue for systems that favour your own party.
Standing back, without arguing for a particular voting system, I would argue the following principles are sound and democratic.
1. Voters in a constituency should have a choice between candidates from the same party. This happens now in multi-member council seats. It doesn't happen in closed list systems or the present system which gives too much power to parties and party activists.
2. Candidates should be linked to and represent a geography. This happens now with the current parliamentary system. It half happens with the Scottish and GLA systems.
3. The number of seats should be roughly proportional to the number of votes. It is hard to argue against this on democratic grounds, only on partisan grounds.
Having first agreed the principles (these or similar) you can then dispassionately compare various possible systems against the principles. Otherwise it's all partisan venting.
Wow talk about missing the barn door by a mile you seem to have missed the most important bit....
Voters should be able to have faith that the vote they cast is used to further the policies it was granted for.....something fptp mostly does but PR manifestly fails to do. Instead those policies you gave a guy a vote to push forward are horse traded away for a ministerial limo
It is you that has missed the barn door!
Under the present system most voters can have zero faith that their vote is used to further the policies they voted for! You can see that can't you? Or do I need to explain?
There should be an additional top-up to FPTP based on how many total votes were cast across the entire election. Then in a safe seat, voting for a party that's got no chance of winning in FPTP is still somewhat relevant on the top-up system.
A certain number of additional MP's would then be determined in the proportion upon which the parties were voted for on a national basis.
I guess similar to the Holyrood list vote but (a) not split into regions, (b) not voted for separately and (c) not gerrymandered to unproportionally over-represent the parties who got relatively few votes.
That would stop e.g. the hypothetical instance of a party losing every single constituency by one vote and getting no representation at all - nationally they would have piled up a significant fraction of the total vote and should get some representation for that.
It would also go some way to making elections too determined by geography alone.
Would need to work out exactly what the split between FPTP and additional top up MPs would need to be to be reasonable and fair.
That is my Sunday morning not-really-thought-about-it-its-probably-stupid idea. It's probably already a system that has a name.
It was pretty much what Blair's Jenkins Commission recommended, which Labour had committed to implement, until it reneged in its promise, which taking the long view was as big a mistake by Labour as were some of the LibDems' decisions in coalition.
In an alternative universe somewhere, Jenkins was implemented, and we never had to endure the false Tory majorities that led to Brexit, and the rest is alternative history...
But Brexit was backed by 52%...
This is my problem. Some people want a voting system because they think it will produce outcomes that they support.
In any universe where Parliament wasn't elected by a FPTP system Cameron wouldn't have got an unexpected majority in 2015 which would have resulted in another coalition where the EU referendum would be quietly shelved.
The irony is that given the mess the EU has made of vaccines (even the New York Times has an article on it today) leaving was probably for the best.
In 2015 UKIP got 13% to 8% for the LDs and UKIP would have held the balance of power in a hung parliament between the Tories on 37% and Labour on 30% and demanded an EU referendum as their price for supporting Cameron's Tories anyway
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put "No Religion", and, to my surprise, so did my Mum!
That's the UK never going back then if that happens.
I’ve been of the view for a long time that the European project must evermore waddle, swim and quack like a federation if the show is to be kept on the road. The Euro was the kicker. Can’t get rid of it in the short term, can’t keep it in the long term. Unless you federalise. That’s by design not accident of course.
Thereby the federalistas have achieved a lot by slowly and quietly boiling the frog but at some point they need to lay the cards on the table. Perhaps we’re approaching that point.
Thank god we’re out of it before that debate gets in full swing. It’s why without any hesitation I ticked Leave. People always looked hurt or confused when I said it was too darn risky to stay in. I get the sense that more people now get my point. One of the most ardent Remainers I know says in the aftermath of vaccinegate that it was always obvious to everyone that leaving would be better for the Uk in the long run, it was just the antagonistic tone of the debate that he didn’t like. Hmmm.
There should be an additional top-up to FPTP based on how many total votes were cast across the entire election. Then in a safe seat, voting for a party that's got no chance of winning in FPTP is still somewhat relevant on the top-up system.
A certain number of additional MP's would then be determined in the proportion upon which the parties were voted for on a national basis.
I guess similar to the Holyrood list vote but (a) not split into regions, (b) not voted for separately and (c) not gerrymandered to unproportionally over-represent the parties who got relatively few votes.
That would stop e.g. the hypothetical instance of a party losing every single constituency by one vote and getting no representation at all - nationally they would have piled up a significant fraction of the total vote and should get some representation for that.
It would also go some way to making elections too determined by geography alone.
Would need to work out exactly what the split between FPTP and additional top up MPs would need to be to be reasonable and fair.
That is my Sunday morning not-really-thought-about-it-its-probably-stupid idea. It's probably already a system that has a name.
It was pretty much what Blair's Jenkins Commission recommended, which Labour had committed to implement, until it reneged in its promise, which taking the long view was as big a mistake by Labour as were some of the LibDems' decisions in coalition.
In an alternative universe somewhere, Jenkins was implemented, and we never had to endure the false Tory majorities that led to Brexit, and the rest is alternative history...
But Brexit was backed by 52%...
This is my problem. Some people want a voting system because they think it will produce outcomes that they support.
In any universe where Parliament wasn't elected by a FPTP system Cameron wouldn't have got an unexpected majority in 2015 which would have resulted in another coalition where the EU referendum would be quietly shelved.
The irony is that given the mess the EU has made of vaccines (even the New York Times has an article on it today) leaving was probably for the best.
In 2015 UKIP got 13% to 8% for the LDs and UKIP would have held the balance of power in a hung parliament between the Tories on 37% and Labour on 30% and demanded an EU referendum as their price for supporting Cameron's Tories anyway
Yes, at 2015 GE, the Right just scraped a 51% majority of votes. But in 2019, the Left (although fractured!) got a majority of votes.
When commenting on voting systems it is hard not to be partisan. It is always tempting to argue for systems that favour your own party.
Standing back, without arguing for a particular voting system, I would argue the following principles are sound and democratic.
1. Voters in a constituency should have a choice between candidates from the same party. This happens now in multi-member council seats. It doesn't happen in closed list systems or the present system which gives too much power to parties and party activists.
2. Candidates should be linked to and represent a geography. This happens now with the current parliamentary system. It half happens with the Scottish and GLA systems.
3. The number of seats should be roughly proportional to the number of votes. It is hard to argue against this on democratic grounds, only on partisan grounds.
Having first agreed the principles (these or similar) you can then dispassionately compare various possible systems against the principles. Otherwise it's all partisan venting.
Wow talk about missing the barn door by a mile you seem to have missed the most important bit....
Voters should be able to have faith that the vote they cast is used to further the policies it was granted for.....something fptp mostly does but PR manifestly fails to do. Instead those policies you gave a guy a vote to push forward are horse traded away for a ministerial limo
It is you that has missed the barn door!
Under the present system most voters can have zero faith that their vote is used to further the policies they voted for! You can see that can't you? Or do I need to explain?
You conflate two different things though, obviously the votes of those people who didn't vote for the winner in each candidate don't get what they voted for. However those that voted for the winner do get what they actually voted for.
Under PR precisely no one gets the policy platform they actually voted for because a lot of it gets horse traded away in backroom coalition deals. Ask you fellow lib dems from 2010 if they got what they voted for in the coalition negotiations, judging by your descent in the polls almost immediately I am guessing not. In fact a lot seemed quite angry their votes were in effect 'stolen' and used to claim a mandate for policies they would never have voted for.
I don't want to cast a vote, then after they are counted wait to find out what I voted for. That is fruit machine politics. Put my vote in pull the lever and hope to win some good policies.
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put "No Religion", and, to my surprise, so did my Mum!
Who was the MP who shouted in a debate on disestablishment, 'Hands off the church of England! It's all that stands between this country and Christianity.'
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
This "UK census" doesn't include Scotland as a part of the SNP differentiation policy (see Covid et al). I think we are doing our census next year. My wild guess is that Scotland may just be a bit more Christian than the rest of the UK (fewer immigrants from non Christian countries, quite a lot (proportionally) from Catholic ones, the wee Free nutters, etc) so that might just tip the balance.
I would actually have expected it to be less Christian overall, albeit probably also less Muslim and Jewish, but I could easily be wrong.
There are of course pockets of very strict Christian observance in Scotland in a way there no longer is in England or Wales, but they are very small.
Catholic church attendance in Scotland is booming on the back of a large influx of eastern Europeans, particularly Poles, who tend to be far more religious (and prone to drink driving and domestic violence, but there we are).
That is true of many parts of England as well though, especially rural areas.
You forget that the BHA nobbled that question last time round, as they want to pretend that they represent "non-religious".
They have quite a remarkable Parliamentary Network.
Plus of course they are popular rentagobs on TV and radio.
As are the NSS.
Lol. And yet we still have to put up with Platitude for the Day on Radio 4 every morning, still consisting almost entirely of religious contributors.
That has to be the most annoying thing on Radio 4- getting lectured in a happy clappy woke way that the god person then links somehow to religion (even though religion for centuries and even now is very unwoke) makes my blood boil as i drive up the A46 to work. Its as though the BBC is talking a 16th century format (only god people can lecture on morals) and applying super 2021 wokeness to the content. Sort of hell (pun intended) on earth (or at least hell on the A46)
It is the utter and complete incoherence of their thought processes that has my head coming into contact with the steering wheel at times. There are exceptions but if that is what passes for thought in religious circles...
IMHO, Thought for the Day undermines support for religion in the UK.
Shadow health secretary Jon Ashworth has said caution is needed for the pandemic response given the level of infections.
He told Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “That will mean, I’m afraid, that governments will have to have the power to impose restrictions where necessary.”
Ashworth said parts of the Coronavirus Act need to be “properly scrutinised” and he will press Health Secretary Matt Hancock to explain why they are needed, including on social care, but he acknowledged other parts are required.
Asked if he will be voting in favour, Ashworth described it as “complex” before adding: “We broadly support it, it ought to be properly scrutinised.”
Now, once the entire adult population has been vaccinated, we must ask why it is that the Government would still need "to have the power to impose restrictions where necessary." How could restrictions be regarded as necessary under such circumstances? What conceivable use would they be? Yes yes, I know, vaccine escaping variants and all that, but you could use that to justify precautionary measures against anything. Emergency powers in case of nuclear war or asteroid impact, anyone?
The entire point of the vaccination programme is to throw the kinds of Draconian measures we have been forced to live with for the past year in the dustbin and to learn to live with the virus (and the fact that it will still kill a certain number of people,) not to cave in to what another poster has succinctly described as the "Zero Covid psychopaths."
The Government seems to have taken this idea onboard, although given its established reputation for flip-flopping I can understand why the Covid Recovery Group are nervous. I think that the CRG are wrong to go too hard on ministers under the cover of "data, not dates" - the rationale behind the five-week gap between the unlocking steps has been clearly and satisfactorily explained, even if the baby steps are frustrating - but the extension of the Coronavirus Act all the way to October does not appear to be justified. As Mark Harper has rightly warned this morning, it gives the impression that the Government is keeping the full mechanisms of suppression in its back pocket, ready to bring them all back after the Summer holidays.
If the Act is to be extended then why not, therefore, until just until the end of August? By that point, based on the Government's timetable, every adult should've been offered at least one dose of the vaccine and had enough time for it to take effect, and we can be reasonably confident that all the clinically vulnerable, health and care workers and everyone over about the age of 40 will have had both shots. If some very limited measures (like masks on public transport, as distinct from locking us all up again for another six months) are needed as the threat of Covid+Flu looms next Winter, then surely these could be introduced through fresh specific legislation, or imposed using the public health laws that existed prior to the pandemic?
Lisa Nandy, on Rawnsley, in a very measure, straight-forward interview said every much the same as Ashworth. As, of course, one might expect.
It's too early to scrap everything, and, as the PHE Head of Immunisation said, there may well be a 'new normal'.
It depends what you mean by "new normal." If that means inevitable socio-economic change like more working from home then that's just an evolutionary process which, for good or ill, we'll have to live with. If "new normal" means that some restrictions carry on forever then no fucking way should we be expected to put up with that bollocks.
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
This "UK census" doesn't include Scotland as a part of the SNP differentiation policy (see Covid et al). I think we are doing our census next year. My wild guess is that Scotland may just be a bit more Christian than the rest of the UK (fewer immigrants from non Christian countries, quite a lot (proportionally) from Catholic ones, the wee Free nutters, etc) so that might just tip the balance.
I would actually have expected it to be less Christian overall, albeit probably also less Muslim and Jewish, but I could easily be wrong.
There are of course pockets of very strict Christian observance in Scotland in a way there no longer is in England or Wales, but they are very small.
Catholic church attendance in Scotland is booming on the back of a large influx of eastern Europeans, particularly Poles, who tend to be far more religious (and prone to drink driving and domestic violence, but there we are).
That is true of many parts of England as well though, especially rural areas.
You forget that the BHA nobbled that question last time round, as they want to pretend that they represent "non-religious".
They have quite a remarkable Parliamentary Network.
Plus of course they are popular rentagobs on TV and radio.
As are the NSS.
Lol. And yet we still have to put up with Platitude for the Day on Radio 4 every morning, still consisting almost entirely of religious contributors.
That has to be the most annoying thing on Radio 4- getting lectured in a happy clappy woke way that the god person then links somehow to religion (even though religion for centuries and even now is very unwoke) makes my blood boil as i drive up the A46 to work. Its as though the BBC is talking a 16th century format (only god people can lecture on morals) and applying super 2021 wokeness to the content. Sort of hell (pun intended) on earth (or at least hell on the A46)
It is the utter and complete incoherence of their thought processes that has my head coming into contact with the steering wheel at times. There are exceptions but if that is what passes for thought in religious circles...
The only one worth listening to was Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. The rest spout drivel.
If a supposedly right wing mp in Priti Patel wants a right wing govt then she is more likely to get it currently under PR than under FPTP as the temptation for the Tory govt is to position itself just to the right of the Labour party to maximise its chances of winning under FPTP.If the Tories had to worry about a UKIP type party then there would be more chance of the Tories introducing 'right wing policies'. Note in Holland and other EU countries the left have faded into nowhere land under PR. In Britain Labour may lose national elections but their metropolitian guardian worldview has been getting empowered over the last 6 years whilst cultural and social conservatives are getting marginalised. FPTP is not the only reason why but it is still a factor
That's the UK never going back then if that happens.
I’ve been of the view for a long time that the European project must evermore waddle, swim and quack like a federation if the show is to be kept on the road. The Euro was the kicker. Can’t get rid of it in the short term, can’t keep it in the long term. Unless you federalise. That’s by design not accident of course.
Thereby the federalistas have achieved a lot by slowly and quietly boiling the frog but at some point they need to lay the cards on the table. Perhaps we’re approaching that point.
Thank god we’re out of it before that debate gets in full swing. It’s why without any hesitation I ticked Leave. People always looked hurt or confused when I said it was too darn risky to stay in. I get the sense that more people now get my point. One of the most ardent Remainers I know says in the aftermath of vaccinegate that it was always obvious to everyone that leaving would be better for the Uk in the long run, it was just the antagonistic tone of the debate that he didn’t like. Hmmm.
Agree with the first two paragraphs, but totally disagree with the third. Those first two are why I voted Remain, why I don't regret doing so and why I hope, even at my age, to see us Rejoin.
@state_go_away thanks Max - is that for behind the camera studies as well as in front of the camera stuff as well? She does perform but her interest is in production more
That's the UK never going back then if that happens.
But what is being proposed there is simply a coherent and logical consequence of the policies that were already in place. The EU and the ECB have been remarkably fortunate to get away with such an incoherent structure in both 2008 and now with Covid. Only the unflinching backing of the Germans has held it together and its been touch and go.
Sooner or later fiscal policy and monetary policy need to be unified. That can happen either at Nation State level or at EU level but this split is dangerous, risky and damaging. This is a way of bringing them together at EU level. Anyone who voted to remain and didn't accept the logic of this really hadn't thought things through particularly well. A vote for remain was never a vote for the status quo. It was a vote for this or something similar.
There should be an additional top-up to FPTP based on how many total votes were cast across the entire election. Then in a safe seat, voting for a party that's got no chance of winning in FPTP is still somewhat relevant on the top-up system.
A certain number of additional MP's would then be determined in the proportion upon which the parties were voted for on a national basis.
I guess similar to the Holyrood list vote but (a) not split into regions, (b) not voted for separately and (c) not gerrymandered to unproportionally over-represent the parties who got relatively few votes.
That would stop e.g. the hypothetical instance of a party losing every single constituency by one vote and getting no representation at all - nationally they would have piled up a significant fraction of the total vote and should get some representation for that.
It would also go some way to making elections too determined by geography alone.
Would need to work out exactly what the split between FPTP and additional top up MPs would need to be to be reasonable and fair.
That is my Sunday morning not-really-thought-about-it-its-probably-stupid idea. It's probably already a system that has a name.
It was pretty much what Blair's Jenkins Commission recommended, which Labour had committed to implement, until it reneged in its promise, which taking the long view was as big a mistake by Labour as were some of the LibDems' decisions in coalition.
In an alternative universe somewhere, Jenkins was implemented, and we never had to endure the false Tory majorities that led to Brexit, and the rest is alternative history...
But Brexit was backed by 52%...
This is my problem. Some people want a voting system because they think it will produce outcomes that they support.
In any universe where Parliament wasn't elected by a FPTP system Cameron wouldn't have got an unexpected majority in 2015 which would have resulted in another coalition where the EU referendum would be quietly shelved.
The irony is that given the mess the EU has made of vaccines (even the New York Times has an article on it today) leaving was probably for the best.
In 2015 UKIP got 13% to 8% for the LDs and UKIP would have held the balance of power in a hung parliament between the Tories on 37% and Labour on 30% and demanded an EU referendum as their price for supporting Cameron's Tories anyway
In an AV based system voting would be very different in 2010 so we really would be in a very different world.
There should be an additional top-up to FPTP based on how many total votes were cast across the entire election. Then in a safe seat, voting for a party that's got no chance of winning in FPTP is still somewhat relevant on the top-up system.
A certain number of additional MP's would then be determined in the proportion upon which the parties were voted for on a na That is my Sunday morning not-really-thought-about-it-its-probably-stupid idea. It's probably already a system that has a name.
It was pretty much what Blair's Jenkins Commission recommended, which Labour had committed to implement, until it reneged in its promise, which taking the long view was as big a mistake by Labour as were some of the LibDems' decisions in coalition.
In an alternative universe somewhere, Jenkins was implemented, and we never had to endure the false Tory majorities that led to Brexit, and the rest is alternative history...
But Brexit was backed by 52%...
This is my problem. Some people want a voting system because they think it will produce outcomes that they support.
In any universe where Parliament wasn't elected by a FPTP system Cameron wouldn't have got an unexpected majority in 2015 which would have resulted in another coalition where the EU referendum would be quietly shelved.
The irony is that given the mess the EU has made of vaccines (even the New York Times has an article on it today) leaving was probably for the best.
Given how advanced our negotiations with AstraZeneca were at the point when Germany suggested the EU take over its own procurement, and the sceptical view we would always have had about handing new powers over to the EU, I very much doubt that we'd have abandoned our procurement exercise in the way that Germany and France did. Far more likely we'd have continued with our own arrangements, as did Hungary from the outset and other EU countries more recently.
Actually, a PR election in 2015 would certainly have resulted in a referendum. UKIP would have had 80 or so seats and would have insisted on it, as a condition of supporting the Conservatives.
Well, I am prepared to accept that and still argue for a fairer voting system as advantageous in principle
I am sure the performance of all those UKIP MPs, rightly elected as representing a significant slice of the electorate, would have behaved as responsibly and maturely as their small phalanx of councillors and that this would surely have furthered their cause.
Many of the reasons why people support FPTP for Westminster are completely irrelevant for the likes of Mayoral elections - things like the constituency link etc. To argue that the principled support of FPTP for Westminster (partly on the grounds of "what works") have anything to do with other elections is ridiculous. Any electoral system should be designed around the outcomes it is trying to achieve.
And that means looking at each election on its own merits and not trying to ram through changes on the back of the 2011 referendum. And frankly - the raising of the situation of the Tory party election encapsulates that perfectly. I can't believe the Tories would want to change the rules for that, so they won't.
It is worrying that there increasingly seem to be arguments being raised around elections which are following the path of what the Republicans have got to in America. We are not at the same stage, some of the arguments are not quite descending into blatant anti-democracy territory - but it is a path which could easily be followed by a Government intent on so doing.
In America, the Republican argument at present literally seems to be (and they have argued this recently in front of the Supreme Court no less) that America is a two party system by design, and if it appears that the unpopularity of one party falls too much, then the system should be changed to ensure they remain competitive. No obligation on said unpopular party to adapt their political platform (the traditional general approach and reason for historic success of the Conservatives in the UK) simply disenfranchise the opposition to even out the numbers. If GOP support in America fell to 30%, they believe that voting constituencies should be restricted to 60% of the potential vote.
(there is also the troubling use of Governing majorities to influence or delay boundary reviews - before long we are going to be heading for (small scale) pre 1832 situations, or akin to failure to eg. revise Council Tax limits, on the grounds that changes will result in too extreme a shift in political fortune as self interest kicks in).
Anyway assuming that the UK and the world does not carry on being overly obsessed with covid -19 beyond a few months my daughter will be reaching university age soon and is interested and good at "behind the scenes " performing arts (ie film/TV /social media (she has 60K followers on Tik Tok apparently!) production and likes theatre as well. Does anyone know the best universities for this kind of thing . Not to academic but more practical in those areas?
RADA is the global leader.
thanks Max - is that for behind the camera studies as well as in front of the camera stuff as well? She does perform but her interest is in production more
It might be worth considering a non-university route for something that vocational: has she considered an apprenticeship or even just applying directly to a production company?
Most of those cheering FPTP as the creator of good and strong government, were enraged by Blair's third term "majority" on 36% of the vote.
Nationally in the UK, FPTP is a system that avoids Italian style inertia. But which is worse, Italian style inertia, or 64% of the population without a voice in government?
And it is remarkable how quickly Italy or Israel gets mentioned in such discussions, while the happy and stable Scandinavian democracies rarely get considered.
Italian politics is unstable because of Italian history and, well, because they are Italian.
As a proponent of proportional voting systems, I am happy to take the rough with the smooth. 2017 would have given Mrs May a massive pro-hard-Brexit mandate under a PR system, and yet under FPTP, no mandate for her Brexit means Brexit position. Not what I voted for, but it is what (I believe) a genuine 50% plus majority under PR voted for. Therefore fair, if nothing else.
So what did that branch of the Conservative Party do, when under their preferred electoral system they could not get their way? They claimed a "zombie parliament".
The Scandies owe their stability to having Constitutional Monarchies .
I was thinking how Sir Keir could solve the problem of him coming across so dull, & what I came up with was for someone else, or perhaps several other people, to do the hard sell of leader debates/election campaigning while he was the competent brains of the operation in the background. I think Theresa May tried that and it lost her the Conservatives majority though.
But it made me think that actually it isn’t that good an idea for the public to have presidential style tv debates inform them pre election, and they should be scrapped. Because being insincere but charismatic shouldn’t trump dull competence when it comes to being PM, but it does.
Maybe it would be better for Labour if they didn’t have a leader, but ruled by committee? The need for the manager to be flamboyant would be negated
'Because being insincere but charismatic shouldn’t trump dull competence when it comes to being PM, but it does.'
That may usually be the case but not always, otherwise the dull Attlee would not have beaten the more charismatic Churchill in 1945, the dull Heath would not have beaten the more charismatic Wilson in 1970 and the dull Major would not have beaten the more charismatic Kinnock in 1992 and even in 2017 the dull May won more seats than the more charismatic Corbyn.
Internationally too in 2012 the dull Hollande beat the more charismatic Sarkozy in France and in 2020 the dull Biden beat the more charismatic Trump in the USA
The first three were before the reality tv/dumbing down celebrity era that we live in. Dull May threw away a supposed 20% lead in opinion polls due to her lack of personality during the campaign
That's the UK never going back then if that happens.
I’ve been of the view for a long time that the European project must evermore waddle, swim and quack like a federation if the show is to be kept on the road. The Euro was the kicker. Can’t get rid of it in the short term, can’t keep it in the long term. Unless you federalise. That’s by design not accident of course.
Thereby the federalistas have achieved a lot by slowly and quietly boiling the frog but at some point they need to lay the cards on the table. Perhaps we’re approaching that point.
Thank god we’re out of it before that debate gets in full swing. It’s why without any hesitation I ticked Leave. People always looked hurt or confused when I said it was too darn risky to stay in. I get the sense that more people now get my point. One of the most ardent Remainers I know says in the aftermath of vaccinegate that it was always obvious to everyone that leaving would be better for the Uk in the long run, it was just the antagonistic tone of the debate that he didn’t like. Hmmm.
Agree with the first two paragraphs, but totally disagree with the third. Those first two are why I voted Remain, why I don't regret doing so and why I hope, even at my age, to see us Rejoin.
If things progress in that direction then there is virtually no possibility (even if they want us back) of our voting to abolish ourselves and become a state/province of the Federal European Republic. At a guess, I would imagine that just about the only people who view that as desirable are the #FBPE mob on Twitter. It's a fringe obsession.
Most of those cheering FPTP as the creator of good and strong government, were enraged by Blair's third term "majority" on 36% of the vote.
Nationally in the UK, FPTP is a system that avoids Italian style inertia. But which is worse, Italian style inertia, or 64% of the population without a voice in government?
And it is remarkable how quickly Italy or Israel gets mentioned in such discussions, while the happy and stable Scandinavian democracies rarely get considered.
Italian politics is unstable because of Italian history and, well, because they are Italian.
As a proponent of proportional voting systems, I am happy to take the rough with the smooth. 2017 would have given Mrs May a massive pro-hard-Brexit mandate under a PR system, and yet under FPTP, no mandate for her Brexit means Brexit position. Not what I voted for, but it is what (I believe) a genuine 50% plus majority under PR voted for. Therefore fair, if nothing else.
So what did that branch of the Conservative Party do, when under their preferred electoral system they could not get their way? They claimed a "zombie parliament".
The Scandies owe their stability to having Constitutional Monarchies .
Most of those cheering FPTP as the creator of good and strong government, were enraged by Blair's third term "majority" on 36% of the vote.
Nationally in the UK, FPTP is a system that avoids Italian style inertia. But which is worse, Italian style inertia, or 64% of the population without a voice in government?
And it is remarkable how quickly Italy or Israel gets mentioned in such discussions, while the happy and stable Scandinavian democracies rarely get considered.
Italian politics is unstable because of Italian history and, well, because they are Italian.
As a proponent of proportional voting systems, I am happy to take the rough with the smooth. 2017 would have given Mrs May a massive pro-hard-Brexit mandate under a PR system, and yet under FPTP, no mandate for her Brexit means Brexit position. Not what I voted for, but it is what (I believe) a genuine 50% plus majority under PR voted for. Therefore fair, if nothing else.
So what did that branch of the Conservative Party do, when under their preferred electoral system they could not get their way? They claimed a "zombie parliament".
The Scandies owe their stability to having Constitutional Monarchies .
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
Most of those cheering FPTP as the creator of good and strong government, were enraged by Blair's third term "majority" on 36% of the vote.
Nationally in the UK, FPTP is a system that avoids Italian style inertia. But which is worse, Italian style inertia, or 64% of the population without a voice in government?
And it is remarkable how quickly Italy or Israel gets mentioned in such discussions, while the happy and stable Scandinavian democracies rarely get considered.
Italian politics is unstable because of Italian history and, well, because they are Italian.
As a proponent of proportional voting systems, I am happy to take the rough with the smooth. 2017 would have given Mrs May a massive pro-hard-Brexit mandate under a PR system, and yet under FPTP, no mandate for her Brexit means Brexit position. Not what I voted for, but it is what (I believe) a genuine 50% plus majority under PR voted for. Therefore fair, if nothing else.
So what did that branch of the Conservative Party do, when under their preferred electoral system they could not get their way? They claimed a "zombie parliament".
The Scandies owe their stability to having Constitutional Monarchies .
Finland is a republic!
Finland is not part of Scandinavia.
"Scandinavia, historically Scandia, part of Northern Europe, generally held to consist of the two countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway and Sweden, with the addition of Denmark. Some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland on geologic and economic grounds and of Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the grounds that their inhabitants speak Scandinavian languages related to those of Norway and Sweden and also have similar cultures."
Is it time to stop scientists speaking "in a personal capacity" when they are on SAGE or other committees?
It is getting ridiculous now. Every day one of them pops up to say lockdown or other restrictions will have to continue for months or years to come. Where is the science behind these statements? And don't I mean a couple of C++ models with massive assumptions (e.g. vaccines aren't as efficient as they really turn out to be).
What was the point of being super fast on vaccine strategy?
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
18,000 fewer vaccinations than the previous day? Week?
I'm assuming it was the correction of a previous error, but it still looks a bit daft.
The column says "Change", presumably from the previosu day's tally, no?
I don't think our number of vaccines administered increased by 711,000 day on day (although it would be wonderful if it had). So I am assuming it is the change in the cumulative total
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
You've just convinced me not to put CofE.
I doubt that but when it comes to religion people certainly play with it.
Anyway assuming that the UK and the world does not carry on being overly obsessed with covid -19 beyond a few months my daughter will be reaching university age soon and is interested and good at "behind the scenes " performing arts (ie film/TV /social media (she has 60K followers on Tik Tok apparently!) production and likes theatre as well. Does anyone know the best universities for this kind of thing . Not to academic but more practical in those areas?
RADA is the global leader.
thanks Max - is that for behind the camera studies as well as in front of the camera stuff as well? She does perform but her interest is in production more
It might be worth considering a non-university route for something that vocational: has she considered an apprenticeship or even just applying directly to a production company?
STRONGLY suggest she considers Falmouth University. It offers what she wants in a very creative community. With sunshine.
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
You've just convinced me not to put CofE.
I doubt that but when it comes to religion people certainly play with it.
Plenty of republics are Christian - consider Germany's CDU/CSU.
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
You've just convinced me not to put CofE.
I doubt that but when it comes to religion people certainly play with it.
The idea of simply responding on the basis of what religion or none that you believe clearly being too straightforward for you?
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
You've just convinced me not to put CofE.
I doubt that but when it comes to religion people certainly play with it.
Plenty of republics are Christian - consider Germany's CDU/CSU.
Yes, and that doesn't invalidate my point about the terms of public debate in the UK - or how it operates.
The Exhaustive Ballot IS NOT "Quasi-AV" - it's the, er, Exhaustive Ballot!
Consider - in AV, you get to rank every candidate in "round 1" and the "method" does the rest, whereas in Tory Leadership Elections, you can only vote for ONE candidate in each round, enabling you to change your preference(s) DURING the election.
Useful for those who change their mind between rounds - I wonder what percentage of the electorate that is.
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
You've just convinced me not to put CofE.
I doubt that but when it comes to religion people certainly play with it.
Everybody is in entitled to their own opinion, but I told it straight.
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
You've just convinced me not to put CofE.
I doubt that but when it comes to religion people certainly play with it.
The idea of simply responding on the basis of what religion or none that you believe clearly being too straightforward for you?
I am a cultural Christian. I go a handful of times a year and do christenings, weddings and funerals in church. I am not a regular Sunday worshipper, but few people are, and CofE is a far better way of describing my identity than putting I'm an atheist.
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
You've just convinced me not to put CofE.
I doubt that but when it comes to religion people certainly play with it.
Everybody is in entitled to their own opinion, but I told it straight.
If one post from me changed your answer on the form then, no you didn't.
Anyway assuming that the UK and the world does not carry on being overly obsessed with covid -19 beyond a few months my daughter will be reaching university age soon and is interested and good at "behind the scenes " performing arts (ie film/TV /social media (she has 60K followers on Tik Tok apparently!) production and likes theatre as well. Does anyone know the best universities for this kind of thing . Not to academic but more practical in those areas?
RADA is the global leader.
thanks Max - is that for behind the camera studies as well as in front of the camera stuff as well? She does perform but her interest is in production more
It might be worth considering a non-university route for something that vocational: has she considered an apprenticeship or even just applying directly to a production company?
STRONGLY suggest she considers Falmouth University. It offers what she wants in a very creative community. With sunshine.
Wherever she goes I wish her well, and very sincerely hope that she doesn't have the experience of a young man of my acquaintance who graduated in a similar area last year and, AFAIK, hasn't had a sniff of an appropriate job since.
Given the source, more like "Our virulent Anglophobia means that every story must be twisted into a Brit-bashing opportunity"
It's a perfectly fair article. In summary: AZ have produced an excellent vaccine which we should use, despite multiple failures in trial planning and communications. Sounds right to me, and not really related to Britain in particular - as the article notes, the product is multinational.
The Exhaustive Ballot IS NOT "Quasi-AV" - it's the, er, Exhaustive Ballot!
Consider - in AV, you get to rank every candidate in "round 1" and the "method" does the rest, whereas in Tory Leadership Elections, you can only vote for ONE candidate in each round, enabling you to change your preference(s) DURING the election.
Useful for those who change their mind between rounds - I wonder what percentage of the electorate that is.
One of the great political slogans was in the 2002 French Presidential election - 'Vote for the crook not the Fascist.'
"The Liberal Democrats have hit back at the party’s former leader in Wales for advising the Tories on how to defeat them.
Alison Alexander, the party’s Senedd candidate in Montgomeryshire, criticised Lembit Opik, who said the Lib Dems had “become a parody of itself” and suggested that there is “currently no vaccine against stupidity”.
In a response, Alexander, said she does not “recognise the party he criticises” and claimed people who have “fond memories of the good Liberal” would find his comments very sad.
Opik used to be the MP for the same constituency, which was one of the safest seats in the country, before he was defeated by Conservative former Assembly Member Glyn Davies at the 2010 General Election."
As you imply, if I understand correctly how google translate works, then Google shouldn’t be her target. Teach a computer based on the human race and the mirror it holds up won’t always be comfortable to gaze in to.
"The Liberal Democrats have hit back at the party’s former leader in Wales for advising the Tories on how to defeat them.
Alison Alexander, the party’s Senedd candidate in Montgomeryshire, criticised Lembit Opik, who said the Lib Dems had “become a parody of itself” and suggested that there is “currently no vaccine against stupidity”.
In a response, Alexander, said she does not “recognise the party he criticises” and claimed people who have “fond memories of the good Liberal” would find his comments very sad.
Opik used to be the MP for the same constituency, which was one of the safest seats in the country, before he was defeated by Conservative former Assembly Member Glyn Davies at the 2010 General Election."
Anyway assuming that the UK and the world does not carry on being overly obsessed with covid -19 beyond a few months my daughter will be reaching university age soon and is interested and good at "behind the scenes " performing arts (ie film/TV /social media (she has 60K followers on Tik Tok apparently!) production and likes theatre as well. Does anyone know the best universities for this kind of thing . Not to academic but more practical in those areas?
RADA is the global leader.
thanks Max - is that for behind the camera studies as well as in front of the camera stuff as well? She does perform but her interest is in production more
It might be worth considering a non-university route for something that vocational: has she considered an apprenticeship or even just applying directly to a production company?
STRONGLY suggest she considers Falmouth University. It offers what she wants in a very creative community. With sunshine.
I know a bit about this, as Fox jr2 is a budding actor. He specifically wants acting training, and there are only limited options. Each school has a distinct style and ethos, and these vary tremendously, with some being odd to the point of abusive.
It is tougher for females as body shaming is rampant, but also the numbers work against them as there are 2 or 3 female candidates for every male one, and drama schools need to balance casts.
If you have the money both Arts Ed and Oxford School of Drama are very good. RADA prefers older candidates, usually with a first degree, and has a definite "look" as to who fits. LAMBDA has a new regime so Woke that it has purged all its best teachers. Fox Jr2 has a friend doing stage lighting at the Guildhall and loving it.
Despite its luvvie image, performing arts are brutally unforgiving and anyone doing it needs a thick skin to get over the constant rejection at auditions, and there still is quite a problem with sub-Weinstein behaviour.
If she is serious, she would do well to get involved with a good Youth Theatre group. Many professional theatres run these, and Fox jr2 cut his teeth at the one at the Curve in Leicester. The National Youth Theatre is good too.
Given the source, more like "Our virulent Anglophobia means that every story must be twisted into a Brit-bashing opportunity"
It's a perfectly fair article. In summary: AZ have produced an excellent vaccine which we should use, despite multiple failures in trial planning and communications. Sounds right to me, and not really related to Britain in particular - as the article notes, the product is multinational.
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
You've just convinced me not to put CofE.
I doubt that but when it comes to religion people certainly play with it.
The idea of simply responding on the basis of what religion or none that you believe clearly being too straightforward for you?
I am a cultural Christian. I go a handful of times a year and do christenings, weddings and funerals in church. I am not a regular Sunday worshipper, but few people are, and CofE is a far better way of describing my identity than putting I'm an atheist.
I think there are millions like me.
Having an interest in steam engines, test cricket, and real ale is a stronger predictor of being CofE in this country that any belief in God.
When talk turns to PR, the example is always the mad systems of Italy and Israel.
But NZ and Germany have an identical system, “MMP”, which works well. Ask Merkel if she thinks it has disfavoured the right; or Ardern if she thinks it discriminated against the left.
Approximately half the seats are local electorates, won via FPTP contests.
Approximately half are national list seats, allocated according a party’s share of a second, party vote to ensure full and perfect proportionality overall.
A 5% threshold stops tiny parties from entering Parliament, although this rule is relaxed if you can win a local electorate.
I wish we would adopt precise same system for the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish Parliaments, as it would remove the seeming bias towards leading parties we see today as a result of using regional lists and avoiding full proportionality.
In NZ (with which I am most familiar) it took around four or five electoral cycles to bed in, during which we saw a number of fruitcakes attempt to hold the balance of power.
Overall, though, it has led to a much healthier mix of representation and opinion.
I am not yet convinced we should change the system at Westminster.
That will kill British people. We need to retaliate so it kills some of them, as well
If they do it, we should never forget. I, for one, would overnight cease having any interest in protecting their frontier from Russia with British boots on the ground, for example. And they can whistle for the cash we agreed to pay in the withdrawal agreement. At this stage it’s clear that the difference between the trade deal and no deal is minimal anyway, especially post Covid. So f*ck ‘em.
But to really stick the knife in, we should still help them get vaccinated.
The Conservatives are oddly fetishistic people nowadays, between the flag furore and this, just this week.
In the past, Conservatives were the pragmatists, chiding others for having fixed ideologies rather than horses for courses.
How times change.
I can remember when it was the tory party that led the charge against the National Front politcising the Union Flag... Now they are the spiritual home of the flag shaggers.
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
You've just convinced me not to put CofE.
I doubt that but when it comes to religion people certainly play with it.
The idea of simply responding on the basis of what religion or none that you believe clearly being too straightforward for you?
I am a cultural Christian. I go a handful of times a year and do christenings, weddings and funerals in church. I am not a regular Sunday worshipper, but few people are, and CofE is a far better way of describing my identity than putting I'm an atheist.
I think there are millions like me.
Having an interest in steam engines, test cricket, and real ale is a stronger predictor of being CofE in this country that any belief in God.
It depends where you go. Holy Trinity in Leicester gets a youthful congregation of 500 on a Sunday for its Carismatic services, which have been known to boil the blood of traditionalists, but it is CoE.
Given the source, more like "Our virulent Anglophobia means that every story must be twisted into a Brit-bashing opportunity"
It's a perfectly fair article. In summary: AZ have produced an excellent vaccine which we should use, despite multiple failures in trial planning and communications. Sounds right to me, and not really related to Britain in particular - as the article notes, the product is multinational.
lol. It says "Britain has been blinded by Brexit" IN THE HEADLINE. So, no, not really related to Britain in particular?
Also, the product is only multinational in the sense of people from many countries worked on it, as you would expect at a world class university like Oxford
The fact is its development was done in Britain, at a British university, and financed by British money from British taxpayers through the British government, who helped with the R&D, manufacturing, everything. So, yeah, it is very much British, more than it is anything else, and the Oirish can do one. What is wrong with them. The Famine was, like 3000 years ago and they still can't cope with us.
The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.
The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.
Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.
Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
I would expect Christian to still be ahead of No religion though.
The question did not ask 'are you religious?' when I did the census yesterday, it asked 'what is your religion?' ie No religion, Christian (no denomination breakdown so Catholics and evangelicals will boost the figure compared to what the C of E would have got), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, any other religion?
I know people who aren't Christians, but write down Christian on the form because they can't stand organisations like the National Secular Society.
I put CofE because I go a couple of times a year (harvest, Easter and Christmas) and I wouldn't want to give succour to anti-disestabishmentarians, ultra-liberal progressives and republicans, which it otherwise most certainly would and potentially influence public policy accordingly.
You've just convinced me not to put CofE.
I doubt that but when it comes to religion people certainly play with it.
The idea of simply responding on the basis of what religion or none that you believe clearly being too straightforward for you?
I am a cultural Christian. I go a handful of times a year and do christenings, weddings and funerals in church. I am not a regular Sunday worshipper, but few people are, and CofE is a far better way of describing my identity than putting I'm an atheist.
I think there are millions like me.
Having an interest in steam engines, test cricket, and real ale is a stronger predictor of being CofE in this country that any belief in God.
It depends where you go. Holy Trinity in Leicester gets a youthful congregation of 500 on a Sunday for its Carismatic services, which have been known to boil the blood of traditionalists, but it is CoE.
That will kill British people. We need to retaliate so it kills some of them, as well
If they do it, we should never forget. I, for one, would overnight cease having any interest in protecting their frontier from Russia with British boots on the ground, for example. And they can whistle for the cash we agreed to pay in the withdrawal agreement. At this stage it’s clear that the difference between the trade deal and no deal is minimal anyway, especially post Covid. So f*ck ‘em.
But to really stick the knife in, we should still help them get vaccinated.
Toys Pram.
Boris has already written his Peace in our times note along with his Fuck em one.
Comments
Standing back, without arguing for a particular voting system, I would argue the following principles are sound and democratic.
1. Voters in a constituency should have a choice between candidates from the same party. This happens now in multi-member council seats. It doesn't happen in closed list systems or the present system which gives too much power to parties and party activists.
2. Candidates should be linked to and represent a geography. This happens now with the current parliamentary system. It half happens with the Scottish and GLA systems.
3. The number of seats should be roughly proportional to the number of votes. It is hard to argue against this on democratic grounds, only on partisan grounds.
Having first agreed the principles (these or similar) you can then dispassionately compare various possible systems against the principles. Otherwise it's all partisan venting.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ew4NF4WXEAYia6x?format=jpg&name=900x900
The irony is that given the mess the EU has made of vaccines (even the New York Times has an article on it today) leaving was probably for the best.
So what did that branch of the Conservative Party do, when under their preferred electoral system they could not get their way? They claimed a "zombie parliament".
He told Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “That will mean, I’m afraid, that governments will have to have the power to impose restrictions where necessary.”
Ashworth said parts of the Coronavirus Act need to be “properly scrutinised” and he will press Health Secretary Matt Hancock to explain why they are needed, including on social care, but he acknowledged other parts are required.
Asked if he will be voting in favour, Ashworth described it as “complex” before adding: “We broadly support it, it ought to be properly scrutinised.”
Now, once the entire adult population has been vaccinated, we must ask why it is that the Government would still need "to have the power to impose restrictions where necessary." How could restrictions be regarded as necessary under such circumstances? What conceivable use would they be? Yes yes, I know, vaccine escaping variants and all that, but you could use that to justify precautionary measures against anything. Emergency powers in case of nuclear war or asteroid impact, anyone?
The entire point of the vaccination programme is to throw the kinds of Draconian measures we have been forced to live with for the past year in the dustbin and to learn to live with the virus (and the fact that it will still kill a certain number of people,) not to cave in to what another poster has succinctly described as the "Zero Covid psychopaths."
The Government seems to have taken this idea onboard, although given its established reputation for flip-flopping I can understand why the Covid Recovery Group are nervous. I think that the CRG are wrong to go too hard on ministers under the cover of "data, not dates" - the rationale behind the five-week gap between the unlocking steps has been clearly and satisfactorily explained, even if the baby steps are frustrating - but the extension of the Coronavirus Act all the way to October does not appear to be justified. As Mark Harper has rightly warned this morning, it gives the impression that the Government is keeping the full mechanisms of suppression in its back pocket, ready to bring them all back after the Summer holidays.
If the Act is to be extended then why not, therefore, until just until the end of August? By that point, based on the Government's timetable, every adult should've been offered at least one dose of the vaccine and had enough time for it to take effect, and we can be reasonably confident that all the clinically vulnerable, health and care workers and everyone over about the age of 40 will have had both shots. If some very limited measures (like masks on public transport, as distinct from locking us all up again for another six months) are needed as the threat of Covid+Flu looms next Winter, then surely these could be introduced through fresh specific legislation, or imposed using the public health laws that existed prior to the pandemic?
thanks Max - is that for behind the camera studies as well as in front of the camera stuff as well? She does perform but her interest is in production more
The range of choices here is possibly more suitable. Also a prestigious institution.
https://www.arts.ac.uk/colleges
FPTP doesn't do that.
AV is actually worse, if AV resulted in a candidate who didn't receive the biggest number of first preferences getting in, you have actually increased the number of dissatisfied voters.
STV in multi-member seats is better. The more members per seat, the more happy voters. It suffers from the problem mentioned above with AV, though.
SNTV in multi-member seats is by definition the best system on my premise.
But it made me think that actually it isn’t that good an idea for the public to have presidential style tv debates inform them pre election, and they should be scrapped. Because being insincere but charismatic shouldn’t trump dull competence when it comes to being PM, but it does.
Maybe it would be better for Labour if they didn’t have a leader, but ruled by committee? The need for the manager to be flamboyant would be negated. An Alpha in charge of subordinates is so right wing
Voters should be able to have faith that the vote they cast is used to further the policies it was granted for.....something fptp mostly does but PR manifestly fails to do. Instead those policies you gave a guy a vote to push forward are horse traded away for a ministerial limo
It's too early to scrap everything, and, as the PHE Head of Immunisation said, there may well be a 'new normal'.
Consider - in AV, you get to rank every candidate in "round 1" and the "method" does the rest, whereas in Tory Leadership Elections, you can only vote for ONE candidate in each round, enabling you to change your preference(s) DURING the election.
Yet one thing I want to see is a more mature polity for the EU - not political appointments and Buggin's Turn. I have my preferences, but movement is more important.
That may usually be the case but not always, otherwise the dull Attlee would not have beaten the more charismatic Churchill in 1945, the dull Heath would not have beaten the more charismatic Wilson in 1970 and the dull Major would not have beaten the more charismatic Kinnock in 1992 and even in 2017 the dull May won more seats than the more charismatic Corbyn.
Internationally too in 2012 the dull Hollande beat the more charismatic Sarkozy in France and in 2020 the dull Biden beat the more charismatic Trump in the USA
Under the present system most voters can have zero faith that their vote is used to further the policies they voted for! You can see that can't you? Or do I need to explain?
Thereby the federalistas have achieved a lot by slowly and quietly boiling the frog but at some point they need to lay the cards on the table. Perhaps we’re approaching that point.
Thank god we’re out of it before that debate gets in full swing. It’s why without any hesitation I ticked Leave. People always looked hurt or confused when I said it was too darn risky to stay in. I get the sense that more people now get my point. One of the most ardent Remainers I know says in the aftermath of vaccinegate that it was always obvious to everyone that leaving would be better for the Uk in the long run, it was just the antagonistic tone of the debate that he didn’t like. Hmmm.
Under PR precisely no one gets the policy platform they actually voted for because a lot of it gets horse traded away in backroom coalition deals. Ask you fellow lib dems from 2010 if they got what they voted for in the coalition negotiations, judging by your descent in the polls almost immediately I am guessing not. In fact a lot seemed quite angry their votes were in effect 'stolen' and used to claim a mandate for policies they would never have voted for.
I don't want to cast a vote, then after they are counted wait to find out what I voted for. That is fruit machine politics. Put my vote in pull the lever and hope to win some good policies.
Note in Holland and other EU countries the left have faded into nowhere land under PR.
In Britain Labour may lose national elections but their metropolitian guardian worldview has been getting empowered over the last 6 years whilst cultural and social conservatives are getting marginalised. FPTP is not the only reason why but it is still a factor
Sooner or later fiscal policy and monetary policy need to be unified. That can happen either at Nation State level or at EU level but this split is dangerous, risky and damaging. This is a way of bringing them together at EU level. Anyone who voted to remain and didn't accept the logic of this really hadn't thought things through particularly well. A vote for remain was never a vote for the status quo. It was a vote for this or something similar.
I am sure the performance of all those UKIP MPs, rightly elected as representing a significant slice of the electorate, would have behaved as responsibly and maturely as their small phalanx of councillors and that this would surely have furthered their cause.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
And that means looking at each election on its own merits and not trying to ram through changes on the back of the 2011 referendum. And frankly - the raising of the situation of the Tory party election encapsulates that perfectly. I can't believe the Tories would want to change the rules for that, so they won't.
It is worrying that there increasingly seem to be arguments being raised around elections which are following the path of what the Republicans have got to in America. We are not at the same stage, some of the arguments are not quite descending into blatant anti-democracy territory - but it is a path which could easily be followed by a Government intent on so doing.
In America, the Republican argument at present literally seems to be (and they have argued this recently in front of the Supreme Court no less) that America is a two party system by design, and if it appears that the unpopularity of one party falls too much, then the system should be changed to ensure they remain competitive. No obligation on said unpopular party to adapt their political platform (the traditional general approach and reason for historic success of the Conservatives in the UK) simply disenfranchise the opposition to even out the numbers. If GOP support in America fell to 30%, they believe that voting constituencies should be restricted to 60% of the potential vote.
(there is also the troubling use of Governing majorities to influence or delay boundary reviews - before long we are going to be heading for (small scale) pre 1832 situations, or akin to failure to eg. revise Council Tax limits, on the grounds that changes will result in too extreme a shift in political fortune as self interest kicks in).
Given the source, more like "Our virulent Anglophobia means that every story must be twisted into a Brit-bashing opportunity"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia
Is it time to stop scientists speaking "in a personal capacity" when they are on SAGE or other committees?
It is getting ridiculous now. Every day one of them pops up to say lockdown or other restrictions will have to continue for months or years to come. Where is the science behind these statements? And don't I mean a couple of C++ models with massive assumptions (e.g. vaccines aren't as efficient as they really turn out to be).
What was the point of being super fast on vaccine strategy?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9385681/EU-doubles-threat-block-Covid-vaccine-exports-UK.html
Look at the vaccination rate - .09% in a day.......
I think there are millions like me.
https://twitter.com/DoraVargha/status/1373211762108076034
Chirac won 82%.
Alison Alexander, the party’s Senedd candidate in Montgomeryshire, criticised Lembit Opik, who said the Lib Dems had “become a parody of itself” and suggested that there is “currently no vaccine against stupidity”.
In a response, Alexander, said she does not “recognise the party he criticises” and claimed people who have “fond memories of the good Liberal” would find his comments very sad.
Opik used to be the MP for the same constituency, which was one of the safest seats in the country, before he was defeated by Conservative former Assembly Member Glyn Davies at the 2010 General Election."
https://nation.cymru/news/lib-dems-hit-back-at-former-leader-for-advising-tories-on-how-to-beat-the-party/
It's just now he's a joke nobody pays attention to, which is why he's saying things to try and feel important.
To be honest, I am surprised Alexander rose to his bait. She should just have let him vent in poisonous irrelevance.
It is tougher for females as body shaming is rampant, but also the numbers work against them as there are 2 or 3 female candidates for every male one, and drama schools need to balance casts.
If you have the money both Arts Ed and Oxford School of Drama are very good. RADA prefers older candidates, usually with a first degree, and has a definite "look" as to who fits. LAMBDA has a new regime so Woke that it has purged all its best teachers. Fox Jr2 has a friend doing stage lighting at the Guildhall and loving it.
Despite its luvvie image, performing arts are brutally unforgiving and anyone doing it needs a thick skin to get over the constant rejection at auditions, and there still is quite a problem with sub-Weinstein behaviour.
If she is serious, she would do well to get involved with a good Youth Theatre group. Many professional theatres run these, and Fox jr2 cut his teeth at the one at the Curve in Leicester. The National Youth Theatre is good too.
But NZ and Germany have an identical system, “MMP”, which works well. Ask Merkel if she thinks it has disfavoured the right; or Ardern if she thinks it discriminated against the left.
Approximately half the seats are local electorates, won via FPTP contests.
Approximately half are national list seats, allocated according a party’s share of a second, party vote to ensure full and perfect proportionality overall.
A 5% threshold stops tiny parties from entering Parliament, although this rule is relaxed if you can win a local electorate.
I wish we would adopt precise same system for the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish Parliaments, as it would remove the seeming bias towards leading parties we see today as a result of using regional lists and avoiding full proportionality.
In NZ (with which I am most familiar) it took around four or five electoral cycles to bed in, during which we saw a number of fruitcakes attempt to hold the balance of power.
Overall, though, it has led to a much healthier mix of representation and opinion.
I am not yet convinced we should change the system at Westminster.
But to really stick the knife in, we should still help them get vaccinated.
I'm used to getting asked the question a lot as it crops up whenever I apply for a civil service vacancy.
Also, the product is only multinational in the sense of people from many countries worked on it, as you would expect at a world class university like Oxford
The fact is its development was done in Britain, at a British university, and financed by British money from British taxpayers through the British government, who helped with the R&D, manufacturing, everything. So, yeah, it is very much British, more than it is anything else, and the Oirish can do one. What is wrong with them. The Famine was, like 3000 years ago and they still can't cope with us.
Boris has already written his Peace in our times note along with his Fuck em one.