The government is right to junk Supplementary Vote – it’s the worst of all worlds – politicalbetting

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

You may be surprised to learn Mr M, that I agree with you.

Apart from the fact that I want to go to see my family in Thailand, probably early in 2022. Of course, Thailand is practically Covid-free.

JonathanD said:

moonshine said:

CarlottaVance said:

US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.

Is it correct that the US could meet Biden’s new vaccine target without AZN? But with it they have a whopping surplus? Interesting. Most interesting...

The US stockpile of AZ is only about 30 million I think. Oxford /AZ seems to be a good vaccine but the production of it seems to be much more difficult than Pfizers jab given the millions more of that which has been produced. An inherent problem with the vaccine or just AZ not being used to vaccine manufacture?

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?

Inflammatory to say the least...

Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.

Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.

Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...

You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.

Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.

There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...

FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.

For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.

@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.

How did you feel about a Labour "majority" in 2005 with 36% of the vote? Outraged at the unfairness? Quite right too.

Charles said:

Gallowgate said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

IanB2 said:

An unusually silly lead from Herdson. Yes, the way SV limits second preferences is flawed, but having a second preference is better than none, and ensures both that fewer votes are wasted and that the winner has the support of at least half of the voters, which FPTnP doesn’t do. His suggestions that votes aren’t wasted under our current system is absurd. Indeed every flaw he seeks to call out under SV is worse when there is no second choice at all.

Agreed. More votes are wasted in FPTP. So a nonsensical argument.
But I also agree with David that this is a distraction from more important issues.

People who aren’t the first choice prefer a system that gives them another chance

Of course in FPTP the “winner” is usually the first choice of only a minority.

Sure. The chosen representative of the local community. Not the lowest common denominator

Gallowgate said:

MattW said:

Gallowgate said:

@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?

Inflammatory to say the least...

No - I'm suggesting that a measure of reform in the current setup in Scotland may prove to be necessary, given how eg separation of powers is not strong enough, and Parliamentary Privilege vs Crown Office is clearly insufficient. Would anyone disagree with that?

I call that a "25 year service". And it is critical for the enquiries to be completed, and really no one outside Scotland has even commented. Yet the Holyrood system is still very obviously inadequate and ready for a refresh.

How that would happen is politically interesting, as it would need to be specifically *not* "Westminster unilateral". However it is basically a Westmnister competence.

I'm suggesting that most of the other aspects of devolution - including the decision to swerve the issue in English Regions - is also suboptimal, and that looking at it all at the same time might be sensible.

Perhaps "political cover" is the wrong phrase.

Westminster could impose changes via a referendum ratification process. It would be tough for the Scottish Government to object if a majority vote for it in a referendum in Scotland.

Although I can imagine the UK government want to avoid talk of Scottish referendums...

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

It really is a no brainer. Not only is there the risk of variants but we urgently need to boost our domestic leisure industry and help get it back on its feet after 18 disastrous months. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake. Plus some improvement in our balance of payments. Plus reminding our oh so good friends in the EU what the UK brings to the party.

rottenborough said:

squareroot2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

I am flabbergasted that confidence in the Oxford vaccine has declined in the EU after they subjected it to more totally unproven allegations.

Neighbours of mine are antivaccers, the force with which they present their ludicrous arguments is staggering. We now have even more reason to avoid them as they are a risk to everyone else.

They will gain protection (probably) through the rest of us doing the work and bothering to get vaccinated. Annoying to say the least.

Charles said:

Gallowgate said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

IanB2 said:

An unusually silly lead from Herdson. Yes, the way SV limits second preferences is flawed, but having a second preference is better than none, and ensures both that fewer votes are wasted and that the winner has the support of at least half of the voters, which FPTnP doesn’t do. His suggestions that votes aren’t wasted under our current system is absurd. Indeed every flaw he seeks to call out under SV is worse when there is no second choice at all.

Agreed. More votes are wasted in FPTP. So a nonsensical argument.
But I also agree with David that this is a distraction from more important issues.

People who aren’t the first choice prefer a system that gives them another chance

Of course in FPTP the “winner” is usually the first choice of only a minority.

Sure. The chosen representative of the local community. Not the lowest common denominator

MarqueeMark said:

Bright sunshine, Chiffchaff singing near the window - winter is now but a faded memory.

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

YBarddCwsc said:

IanB2 said:

Slackbladder said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1373904704451776513

An interesting point.

If only the Remoaners would do the same.

I think you'll find that the Labour by-election campaign will be a single issue "vote to give the nurses more than 1%!" campaign.

You mean this will be happening at the same time as the elections to the Senedd.

Labour are in control in Wales & they can make plain their intentions there.

Labour in Wales awarded a 2.8 per cent pay increase in 2020 to doctors & dentists.

And the nurses were excluded.

Somehow, no matter who is in power, the nurses seem to get a poor deal.

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?

Inflammatory to say the least...

Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.

Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.

Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...

You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.

Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.

There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...

FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.

For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.

@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.

How did you feel about a Labour "majority" in 2005 with 36% of the vote? Outraged at the unfairness? Quite right too.

But this is the key point, isn't it? The Tories didn't moan. Ultimately, the Tories and Labour support FPTP because it cements their dominant positions. With PR, you never know what might happen to those parties.

Plenty of *now* Tories did moan, actually.

I believe UKIP always supported electoral reform.

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?

Inflammatory to say the least...

Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.

Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.

Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...

You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.

Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.

There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...

FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.

For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.

@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.

How did you feel about a Labour "majority" in 2005 with 36% of the vote? Outraged at the unfairness? Quite right too.

But this is the key point, isn't it? The Tories didn't moan. Ultimately, the Tories and Labour support FPTP because it cements their dominant positions. With PR, you never know what might happen to those parties.

Plenty of *now* Tories did moan, actually.

I believe UKIP always supported electoral reform.

As a former Ukip member and voter, I never supported PR (I voted for FPTP in 2011).

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?

Inflammatory to say the least...

Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.

Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.

Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...

You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.

Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.

There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...

FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.

For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.

@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.

How did you feel about a Labour "majority" in 2005 with 36% of the vote? Outraged at the unfairness? Quite right too.

But this is the key point, isn't it? The Tories didn't moan. Ultimately, the Tories and Labour support FPTP because it cements their dominant positions. With PR, you never know what might happen to those parties.

Yes they did. Cameron was so enraged he demanded boundary changes.

So rather than repair the broken system Cameron's answer was to regain the advantage iwithin the unfair system.

I think it's a poor argument to criticize a party for arguing for fairly sized seats in a FPTP system. The 2010 changes notionally gave the Tories a dozen more seats, but as OGH likes to point out, it's not just the size of the seat but differential turnout that contributes to the apparent unfairness against the Tories. Not much you can do about that, except try to win in areas where the turnout is lower. I'd suggest the Tories have done precisely that.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1373920450414325761

Is Labour value for second place?

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?

Inflammatory to say the least...

Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.

Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.

Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...

You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.

Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.

There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...

FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.

For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.

@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.

How did you feel about a Labour "majority" in 2005 with 36% of the vote? Outraged at the unfairness? Quite right too.

But this is the key point, isn't it? The Tories didn't moan. Ultimately, the Tories and Labour support FPTP because it cements their dominant positions. With PR, you never know what might happen to those parties.

Yes they did. Cameron was so enraged he demanded boundary changes.

So rather than repair the broken system Cameron's answer was to regain the advantage iwithin the unfair system.

I think it's a poor argument to criticize a party for arguing for fairly sized seats in a FPTP system. The 2010 changes notionally gave the Tories a dozen more seats, but as OGH likes to point out, it's not just the size of the seat but differential turnout that contributes to the apparent unfairness against the Tories. Not much you can do about that, except try to win in areas where the turnout is lower. I'd suggest the Tories have done precisely that.

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

You may be surprised to learn Mr M, that I agree with you.

Apart from the fact that I want to go to see my family in Thailand, probably early in 2022. Of course, Thailand is practically Covid-free.

I'd suggest your bigger concern would be about whether or not Thailand will let you in (they may do as I guess their economy is suffering badly from no tourism).

That's what I don't get about this whole debate. It's all well and good focussing on our government and what they think, but who wants to go to a country that's in lockdown?!

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?

Inflammatory to say the least...

Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.

Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.

Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...

You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.

Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.

There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...

FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.

For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.

@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.

How did you feel about a Labour "majority" in 2005 with 36% of the vote? Outraged at the unfairness? Quite right too.

But this is the key point, isn't it? The Tories didn't moan. Ultimately, the Tories and Labour support FPTP because it cements their dominant positions. With PR, you never know what might happen to those parties.

Yes they did. Cameron was so enraged he demanded boundary changes.

So rather than repair the broken system Cameron's answer was to regain the advantage iwithin the unfair system.

I think it's a poor argument to criticize a party for arguing for fairly sized seats in a FPTP system. The 2010 changes notionally gave the Tories a dozen more seats, but as OGH likes to point out, it's not just the size of the seat but differential turnout that contributes to the apparent unfairness against the Tories. Not much you can do about that, except try to win in areas where the turnout is lower. I'd suggest the Tories have done precisely that.

Why is anyone putting a party political slant on this?

The fact is if you support FPTP you must be comfortable with 36% of the vote (or even lower) giving a party a majority of seats, whoever this may be.

Again you may think that the benefits of strong and decisive government are worth it and that's fine but it's still a valid criticism.

Labour's impressively efficient performance in 2005 wasn't down to unequally sized constituencies (it helped, but only a little bit).

But I don't think it's wrong to at least try to get them roughly equal (I tend to agree with @rcs1000 that the tolerance should be higher than -/+ 5%).

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?

Inflammatory to say the least...

Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.

Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.

Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...

You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.

Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.

There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...

FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.

For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.

@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.

How did you feel about a Labour "majority" in 2005 with 36% of the vote? Outraged at the unfairness? Quite right too.

But this is the key point, isn't it? The Tories didn't moan. Ultimately, the Tories and Labour support FPTP because it cements their dominant positions. With PR, you never know what might happen to those parties.

Yes they did. Cameron was so enraged he demanded boundary changes.

So rather than repair the broken system Cameron's answer was to regain the advantage iwithin the unfair system.

I think it's a poor argument to criticize a party for arguing for fairly sized seats in a FPTP system. The 2010 changes notionally gave the Tories a dozen more seats, but as OGH likes to point out, it's not just the size of the seat but differential turnout that contributes to the apparent unfairness against the Tories. Not much you can do about that, except try to win in areas where the turnout is lower. I'd suggest the Tories have done precisely that.

Or base boundaries on registered voters rather than population? Which apparently assists the Tories.

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?

Inflammatory to say the least...

Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.

Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.

Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...

You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.

Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.

There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...

FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.

For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.

@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.

How did you feel about a Labour "majority" in 2005 with 36% of the vote? Outraged at the unfairness? Quite right too.

But this is the key point, isn't it? The Tories didn't moan. Ultimately, the Tories and Labour support FPTP because it cements their dominant positions. With PR, you never know what might happen to those parties.

Yes they did. Cameron was so enraged he demanded boundary changes.

So rather than repair the broken system Cameron's answer was to regain the advantage iwithin the unfair system.

I think it's a poor argument to criticize a party for arguing for fairly sized seats in a FPTP system. The 2010 changes notionally gave the Tories a dozen more seats, but as OGH likes to point out, it's not just the size of the seat but differential turnout that contributes to the apparent unfairness against the Tories. Not much you can do about that, except try to win in areas where the turnout is lower. I'd suggest the Tories have done precisely that.

Why is anyone putting a party political slant on this?

The fact is if you support FPTP you must be comfortable with 36% of the vote (or even lower) giving a party a majority of seats, whoever this may be.

Again you may think that the benefits of strong and decisive government are worth it and that's fine but it's still a valid criticism.

Labour's impressively efficient performance in 2005 wasn't down to unequally sized constituencies (it helped, but only a little bit).

But I don't think it's wrong to at least try to get them roughly equal (I tend to agree with @rcs1000 that the tolerance should be higher than -/+ 5%).

I don't disagree but I'm not sure what that has to do with my post.

rottenborough said:

Floater said:

https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1373782084754550787

Portexit? Pexit?

OldKingCole said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

You may be surprised to learn Mr M, that I agree with you.

Apart from the fact that I want to go to see my family in Thailand, probably early in 2022. Of course, Thailand is practically Covid-free.

I'd suggest your bigger concern would be about whether or not Thailand will let you in (they may do as I guess their economy is suffering badly from no tourism).

That's what I don't get about this whole debate. It's all well and good focussing on our government and what they think, but who wants to go to a country that's in lockdown?!

The Thais are concerned about their economy and the effect of no foreign tourists. Up until now visitors have had to spend a fortnight in quarantine and hotels have been advertising suitable packages. Some equally elderly acquaintances of ours said it was quite pleasant; excellent food, sunny balcony, access to international TV. Of course it cuts the time with relatives.
However, I understand that they are now planning to allow in people with evidence of vaccination, a negative test on arrival and another after three days quarantine.
Which, even out of a 30 day stay is acceptable. And, with exceptions along the Myanmar border, Thailand isn't in lockdown.

Fishing said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

Pop quiz: when will there be no risk of new variants from overseas?

Answer: never.

DavidL said:

Do they actually take what their politicians say seriously in the EU? No wonder there was mutual incomprehension.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I personally think the London voting system is a lot better than FPTP.

I will be voting for Khan again, motivated ever more by the Tories continuing to fuck up London with their decisions

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?

Inflammatory to say the least...

Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.

Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.

Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...

You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.

Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.

There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...

FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.

For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.

@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.

How did you feel about a Labour "majority" in 2005 with 36% of the vote? Outraged at the unfairness? Quite right too.

But this is the key point, isn't it? The Tories didn't moan. Ultimately, the Tories and Labour support FPTP because it cements their dominant positions. With PR, you never know what might happen to those parties.

Yes they did. Cameron was so enraged he demanded boundary changes.

So rather than repair the broken system Cameron's answer was to regain the advantage iwithin the unfair system.

I think it's a poor argument to criticize a party for arguing for fairly sized seats in a FPTP system. The 2010 changes notionally gave the Tories a dozen more seats, but as OGH likes to point out, it's not just the size of the seat but differential turnout that contributes to the apparent unfairness against the Tories. Not much you can do about that, except try to win in areas where the turnout is lower. I'd suggest the Tories have done precisely that.

Why is anyone putting a party political slant on this?

The fact is if you support FPTP you must be comfortable with 36% of the vote (or even lower) giving a party a majority of seats, whoever this may be.

Again you may think that the benefits of strong and decisive government are worth it and that's fine but it's still a valid criticism.

Labour's impressively efficient performance in 2005 wasn't down to unequally sized constituencies (it helped, but only a little bit).

But I don't think it's wrong to at least try to get them roughly equal (I tend to agree with @rcs1000 that the tolerance should be higher than -/+ 5%).

I don't disagree but I'm not sure what that has to do with my post.

You said "it's still a valid criticism" to which I assumed you referring to the issue of the Tories wanting to remove the bias towards Labour.

I meant that a party being able to win a majority of seats on 36% of the vote is a valid criticism of FPTP.

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.

If Frau Dr van der Leyen has any sense she'll issue a statement along the lines of 'We've had concerns over the AZN vaccine, but as a scientist I've realised these were groundless. It should be part of the range of vaccines being used.'
And leave it to the company, and the industry generally, to get one with meeting contractual obligations.

That sort of co-operation is what the EU is for.

They're panicking. And organizations which panic rarely make sensible decisions.

I do hope that the government is speaking to all the pharmaceutical companies inviting them - with all the inducements it has available - to locate here.

I would much rather stop foreign holidays and have the domestic economy opened up fully. Now is the time to say this - when people are booking their holidays. If matters improve on the Continent, relaxations can be introduced later.

I would not book a holiday to a country which isn't vaccinating and is now into its third lockdown. The risk is too great.

rottenborough said:

Interesting...

Scientists Say They Found Cause of Rare Blood Clotting Linked to AstraZeneca Vaccine

German, Norwegian researchers say rare autoimmune reaction is behind several cases of brain blood clotting, and suggest a possible treatment for it

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-say-they-found-cause-of-blood-clotting-linked-to-astrazeneca-vaccine-11616169108

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

I would tend to agree on b. But just to say there are few more annoying words on PB than ‘holibobs’. It tends to be used by those who think holidays unimportant. Yet holidays are very important things, even though they may be domestic only for a while.

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1373920450414325761

Is Labour value for second place?

How does that translates seat wise??

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Anabobazina said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarqueeMark said:

Bright sunshine, Chiffchaff singing near the window - winter is now but a faded memory.

Snow is forecast for Friday apparently

Maybe on the top of Snowdon.

BBC forecast was cold weather towards the end of the week with risk of snow, but they did not mention Snowdon

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/EleniCourea/status/1373929325788008452

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

Blimey just noticed that the Army is likely to be reduced by 10,000 from the current 70,000. I note we're already between Ethiopia and Bangladesh in size of active forces.

Now, more than ever, we need those on PB who have yearnings in that direction, indeed have displayed strategic aptitude in terms of likely campaigns, to sign up. We simply can't allow the country to be at such risk.

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

You may be surprised to learn Mr M, that I agree with you.

Apart from the fact that I want to go to see my family in Thailand, probably early in 2022. Of course, Thailand is practically Covid-free.

I'd suggest your bigger concern would be about whether or not Thailand will let you in (they may do as I guess their economy is suffering badly from no tourism).

That's what I don't get about this whole debate. It's all well and good focussing on our government and what they think, but who wants to go to a country that's in lockdown?!

The Thais are concerned about their economy and the effect of no foreign tourists. Up until now visitors have had to spend a fortnight in quarantine and hotels have been advertising suitable packages. Some equally elderly acquaintances of ours said it was quite pleasant; excellent food, sunny balcony, access to international TV. Of course it cuts the time with relatives.
However, I understand that they are now planning to allow in people with evidence of vaccination, a negative test on arrival and another after three days quarantine.
Which, even out of a 30 day stay is acceptable. And, with exceptions along the Myanmar border, Thailand isn't in lockdown.

Thailand must be haemorrhaging money (like so many others). Tourism is about 20% of their GDP, and all the islands, beaches and Bangkok hotels are deserted. Many have been shuttered for a year. The domestic market cannot make up for international visitors, not remotely

Eventually they will just have to reopen, or risk civil unrest as poverty deepens

They've been doing quite well with internal tourism. Obviously not making up for all the foreigners, but even wealthy, or well-off Thais, who would normally have gone abroad, have been subsidised to spend their holidays in the Kingdom. Of course, as you say, it doesn't go far to make up the difference. The black, or least cuddly brown, economy has also, I gather, suffered very severely.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

So do we.

A well-off old bloke who has seen the world and now lives in a very comfortable pad in a charming area with an unbroken view of the wonderful British countryside.

Other, younger types not so much.

There's nothing stopping younger types from enjoying a domestic holiday this year.

If it means that the younger types can live as normal again, go clubbing at weekends, enjoy hook ups, live life, get jobs, go to uni, or anything else every other day of the year then a weekend at Ibiza can wait until next year.

The same cohort that has given up so much for everyone else for 4-5% of their lives will be asked to wait another 4-5% of it? To protect the oldies who live in lovely houses in the West Country. And have all been vaccinated.

I have been following the news fairly carefully but missed the transition from what I believed was the AZN jab giving protection against serious illness and death from the SA variant, and now no one being so sure.

I know you are past the days you describe, but hundreds of thousands aren't. It's a big ask.

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

Blimey just noticed that the Army is likely to be reduced by 10,000 from the current 70,000. I note we're already between Ethiopia and Bangladesh in size of active forces.

Now, more than ever, we need those on PB who have yearnings in that direction, indeed have displayed strategic aptitude in terms of likely campaigns, to sign up. We simply can't allow the country to be at such risk.

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

Ah yes. Soz. To 70,000. Still low.

turbotubbs said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Anabobazina said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarqueeMark said:

Bright sunshine, Chiffchaff singing near the window - winter is now but a faded memory.

Snow is forecast for Friday apparently

Maybe on the top of Snowdon.

BBC forecast was cold weather towards the end of the week with risk of snow, but they did not mention Snowdon

Mentioned even dartmoor (above 200m). Snow at Easter is more common than at Christmas.

turbotubbs said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

I would tend to agree on b. But just to say there are few more annoying words on PB than ‘holibobs’. It tends to be used by those who think holidays unimportant. Yet holidays are very important things, even though they may be domestic only for a while.

The problem with holidays is that people want a complete change of scene and for a lot of people that means being outside the UK.

Equally trying to find anywhere in the UK looks like it's going to be hard work - we are going away but that's mainly because of friends giving us very first dibs on cancellations.

I do wonder about capacity in the UK - if we all want a nice cottage in Devon/Cornwall/the Lakes etc. Might be time to explore those lesser visited places.

TOPPING said:

Stocky said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

I would tend to agree on b. But just to say there are few more annoying words on PB than ‘holibobs’. It tends to be used by those who think holidays unimportant. Yet holidays are very important things, even though they may be domestic only for a while.

It deliberately seeks to trivialise holidays and fails to distinguish between holidays and travel. No return to normal counts as normal whilst we are imprisoned on this island. Anyway, we have been repeatedly assured that the vaccines are the silver bullet and the road map gives and end to all legal restrictions in June.

Ask @MarqueeMark to tell you the countries he has visited prior to his current "let no one travel" views on life.

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

I would tend to agree on b. But just to say there are few more annoying words on PB than ‘holibobs’. It tends to be used by those who think holidays unimportant. Yet holidays are very important things, even though they may be domestic only for a while.

The problem with holidays is that people want a complete change of scene and for a lot of people that means being outside the UK.

Equally trying to find anywhere in the UK looks like it's going to be hard work - we are going away but that's mainly because of friends giving us very first dibs on cancellations.

I do wonder about capacity in the UK - if we all want a nice cottage in Devon/Cornwall/the Lakes etc. Might be time to explore those lesser visited places.

H*rtl*p**l?

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

Oh, I think its been noticed:

https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1373919186162974721?s=20

The issue with Alastair's analysis on anything Brexit is he's instinctively anti-UK in any position. He's taken brexit as a very personal insult by the British people towards him. It completely blinds him to the very obvious that the government has already seen this transactional relationship, hence putting Lord Frost into the long term role of overseeing the EU-UK relationship. It's also why the Bank, Treasury and other government organisations are working on measures to simply bypass EU regulatory exports on a long term basis and looking to APAC for future trade, alliances and growth. I mean the government just released a pivotal paper outlining the UK's pivot to Asia.

squareroot2 said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

Blimey just noticed that the Army is likely to be reduced by 10,000 from the current 70,000. I note we're already between Ethiopia and Bangladesh in size of active forces.

Now, more than ever, we need those on PB who have yearnings in that direction, indeed have displayed strategic aptitude in terms of likely campaigns, to sign up. We simply can't allow the country to be at such risk.

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

Ah yes. Soz. To 70,000. Still low.

Thats about 35k operational.troops?

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1373907962230669312

Just say no.

Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.

This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;

or

b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.

I know where I stand.

You may be surprised to learn Mr M, that I agree with you.

Apart from the fact that I want to go to see my family in Thailand, probably early in 2022. Of course, Thailand is practically Covid-free.

I'd suggest your bigger concern would be about whether or not Thailand will let you in (they may do as I guess their economy is suffering badly from no tourism).

That's what I don't get about this whole debate. It's all well and good focussing on our government and what they think, but who wants to go to a country that's in lockdown?!

The Thais are concerned about their economy and the effect of no foreign tourists. Up until now visitors have had to spend a fortnight in quarantine and hotels have been advertising suitable packages. Some equally elderly acquaintances of ours said it was quite pleasant; excellent food, sunny balcony, access to international TV. Of course it cuts the time with relatives.
However, I understand that they are now planning to allow in people with evidence of vaccination, a negative test on arrival and another after three days quarantine.
Which, even out of a 30 day stay is acceptable. And, with exceptions along the Myanmar border, Thailand isn't in lockdown.

Thailand must be haemorrhaging money (like so many others). Tourism is about 20% of their GDP, and all the islands, beaches and Bangkok hotels are deserted. Many have been shuttered for a year. The domestic market cannot make up for international visitors, not remotely

Eventually they will just have to reopen, or risk civil unrest as poverty deepens

They've been doing quite well with internal tourism. Obviously not making up for all the foreigners, but even wealthy, or well-off Thais, who would normally have gone abroad, have been subsidised to spend their holidays in the Kingdom. Of course, as you say, it doesn't go far to make up the difference. The black, or least cuddly brown, economy has also, I gather, suffered very severely.

My favourite hotel in Bangkok (quite new, lovely sky bar) has been completely shut since March 2020. Not just restricted, or taking quarantined tourists - entirely closed. Will it ever reopen?