Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

24567

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 14,867

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
    Problem is that you have to stop over somewhere to get there that isn't.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,359

    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
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,359
    JonathanD said:

    moonshine 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?
    Chemistry vs biology
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,967
    IanB2 said:

    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,234

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,417
    IanB2 said:

    As record-breaking rains batter the NSW coastline and southern Queensland, causing widespread flooding, animals and insects are scrambling to escape the waters.

    “There were also skinks, ants, basically every insect, crickets – all just trying to get away from the flood waters. My husband videoed it, because I was not going close to it. When he was standing still he had spiders climbing up his legs. A skink used him as a pole to get away from the water.

    Macksville resident Melanie Williams was also shocked by a swarm of spiders climbing the outer wall of her home as they fled for higher ground. “I occasionally see spiders around the place but never anything like that, it was just insane,” she told the ABC. She told Guardian Australia the spiders outside her home were “horrific” but her neighbour told her there were twice as many inside his garage.

    Which reminds me of the fun fact that an episode of Peppa Pig is banned in Australia,
    because she befriends a spider.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    edited March 22
    Charles 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
    Is the Tory leader the "lowest common denominator"?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 39,730
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    King Cole, I thought we'd offered to retain it until they had time to sort things but the EU wanted to take the EMA out quickly.

    Could be, although I recall going to a Retired Pharmacists meeting in Nov 2018 where a speaker, a retired EMA scientist, urged us to lobby out Govt. to keep the EMA as it was.
    We wanted to keep it and proposed that we be an associate member.

    They said no, broke their lease and moved. Over 1/3 staff said they would rather stay in London
    And they had to pay up for the broken lease. Even went to court about it.
    I believe their argument was it was our fault they had broken their contract... hmm that sounds familiar
    Yes, they tried to argue that the Brexit vote amounted to a force majeure entitling them to terminate their contract with a private landlord. I think it would be unfair to say that they were laughed out of court but it was pretty close.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,121

    MattW 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...
    I would see the process as needing a strong element of "what do Scots want", combined with creating adequate standards.

    Glad I don't have to design the process.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 930
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
    Agree. That approach also serves to highlight even further the contrast between the UK's success and, um, the EU's record. If I was Boris I would keep the ban on holidays to Europe going as long as possible - the optics are great politically.

    He just needs to ignore all the idiots in the Covid Recovery Group or whatever its called who were pushing for the Xmas relaxation. No doubt, they're all itching to get back to their Tuscan villas.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,232
    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,839

    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.
    We are fortunate that their views are in a minority here. The people who can't receive the vaccine should be protected anyway.

    In places where anti vaccine views are very common, the risks to people who can't receive the vaccine must be much greater. Rather frightening.

    Good morning, everybody.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    edited March 22
    I think there are plenty of reasons to support FPTP but it does it a disservice when its supporters use half-truths to justify it.

    The fact is that the main benefits of FPTP are the singular local MP and the tendency to produce "strong" government.

    It all comes down to whether you believe those benefits outweigh the democratic costs.

    If you do, fair enough.

    But to pretend there's no downsides to FPTP at all? Come on.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,493
    Charles 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
    The one good advert for AV I saw on social media in the referendum ran as follows:
    Six friends live in a village with four pubs and one coffee shop and decide where to meet on Friday night. Four of them fancy an alcoholic drink, two prefer coffee (all the pubs also serve good coffee). They take a vote, under FPTP each of the four vote for a different pub (they each have a different favourite) while the two coffee drinkers vote for the coffee shop and off everyone goes to the coffee shop, even though 2/3 wanted to go to a pub. Under AV or any similar system, they end up at the pub that, on balance, they like the most (which is also influenced by which one the coffee drinkers prefer for better coffee of fewer drunks).
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,981

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,417

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

    Not another blooming Russian agent!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,404

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,334

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,234

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,594
    Also in the AZ Press release:

    Approximately 20% of participants were 65 years and over, and approximately 60% had co-morbidities associated with an increased risk for progression of severe COVID-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity or cardiac disease.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,689

    Sixty-one percent of French adults surveyed said the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 18 percentage points compared to February, YouGov said.

    Just over half of German adults surveyed said they thought the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 15 percentage points compared to February, while 43% of Italians had serious doubts, an increase of almost a third.


    Well done mini-Trump...time to build a wall around France.

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

    The 100% is stunning. Absolutely stunning. Think for a moment where we were with vaccines a year ago when this started.

    Everyone in Oxford team should get a knighthood.

    It's quite stunning how at odds public opinion in the EU is with reality, and it's all down to the incoherent political leadership who have turned a procurement debacle into a full-blown crisis.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,232

    IanB2 said:

    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.
    I am sure FM Andrew RT Davies will put that right.

    (Conservatives most seats, and by a reasonable margin. As you know, lockdowns managed by Labour in Cardiff Bay have gone down very badly in Wales, whereas vaccinations managed by the Conservatives in Westminster have gone down very well. Back on topic, that leaves us with "but I am not sure where RT gets the support to get him over the thirty from").
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,021
    Mr. Borough, Portugo.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,234

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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).
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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).
    Nobody voted "for FPTP" in 2011. Plenty of people voted against AV but support PR.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514
    MaxPB said:

    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.
    Mr Meeks does see Brexit in a very peculiar way: as if the British voters walked up to him, pulled down their breeches, and did a mahoosive fart in his face. He cannot be rational about Brexit, as the humiliation stings to this day.

    It should be a diagnostic subset when the DSM tackles Strasbourg Syndrome. The People Who Take It Personally.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,232
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,489
    How does that translates seat wise??
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,234

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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%).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,912
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
    In all systems with any constituency basis, re-districting is required from time to time.

    Otherwise Old Sarum will be recreated, eventually.

    Boundary reviews have been repeatedly kicked into the long grass because they wouldn't benefit various parties.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 39,730
    glw said:

    Sixty-one percent of French adults surveyed said the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 18 percentage points compared to February, YouGov said.

    Just over half of German adults surveyed said they thought the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 15 percentage points compared to February, while 43% of Italians had serious doubts, an increase of almost a third.


    Well done mini-Trump...time to build a wall around France.

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

    The 100% is stunning. Absolutely stunning. Think for a moment where we were with vaccines a year ago when this started.

    Everyone in Oxford team should get a knighthood.

    It's quite stunning how at odds public opinion in the EU is with reality, and it's all down to the incoherent political leadership who have turned a procurement debacle into a full-blown crisis.
    Do they actually take what their politicians say seriously in the EU? No wonder there was mutual incomprehension.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,518
    tlg86 said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
    I don't really like complaints about this. Labour should respond by using its significant resources to get voters registered. It worked for Stacey Abrams in Georgia.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    edited March 22
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,404

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,234

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
    Tricky one - but that's an issue for PR too, is it not?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,594
    NYT article about Intellectual Property & COVID jabs. Number of mentions of AZ? Zero.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/21/world/vaccine-patents-us-eu.html
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,323
    Notable that the efficacy for the AZN vaccine in the US trial is higher than the 70% claimed from the rather messy earlier trials.
    And that despite the current incidence of more infectious and/or resistant variants in the US.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
    Tricky one - but that's an issue for PR too, is it not?
    Well the number of registered voters is a defined figure whereas population has inherent uncertainty.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,234

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 495
    edited March 22
    Portugo?

    Edit: Drat, beaten by Mr Dancer.
  • 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
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514

    tlg86 said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 930

    How does that translates seat wise??
    I think Tories still in second. The list vote is the crucial determinant.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,989
    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
    Although once vaccine coverage has spread across most of the world where possible. combined with recovered cases, the reservoir diminishes. I also think people are unnecessarily scared about a variant that completely escapes the vaccines/recovered immunity. This is unlikely. Changes in the virus are relatively small, and are selected on for viability. Its possible that changes occur that diminish its risk too. Indeed some scientists believe that will be its ultimate fate - to become just another cold inducing coronavirus.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,728
    edited March 22

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,689
    DavidL said:

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

    The government here has been remarkably on-message about vaccination, and to be fair the opposition have been very supportive as well. Essentially no prominent person in a public office is saying anything other than "vaccines are safe, and vaccines are effective". Over on the continent all sorts of senior people are spouting nonsense, and in some cases being untruthful.
  • https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1373927987884781568

    The EU has managed to unite Labour and the Tories against it, round of applause
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,489

    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

    I'm shocked that you are voting Labour I tell ya... shocked!
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 14,931
    edited March 22

    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

    I'm shocked that you are voting Labour I tell ya... shocked!
    I've voted Tory in the past.

    And Lib Dem.

    How's that for shocking?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,334
    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,234
    edited March 22

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL 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.
    It is, though I'm perfectly comfortable with it. The mistake Labour made was to assume that the system would always work for them. Even in 2010 they did pretty well. Compare and contrast their 2010 performance with the Conservatives in 1997:

    1997 Conservatives:

    30.7% of votes
    25.0% of seats


    2010 Labour:

    29.0% of votes
    39.7% of seats

    Ultimately times change and Labour have been badly beaten in Scotland and in Northern/Middle England against very different (though in, some ways, very similar) opponents.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514
    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
    It also trivialises 10% of our GDP - tourism (and allied things like hospitality)

    We really need to know the true threat from the SA variant. We still don't know if our vaccines prevent acute disease or death.

    We know Novavax DOES work, so that could be another way towards normality. You want to go abroad? You get a Novavax booster shot. Need to think creatively
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,912
    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    Sixty-one percent of French adults surveyed said the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 18 percentage points compared to February, YouGov said.

    Just over half of German adults surveyed said they thought the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 15 percentage points compared to February, while 43% of Italians had serious doubts, an increase of almost a third.


    Well done mini-Trump...time to build a wall around France.

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

    The 100% is stunning. Absolutely stunning. Think for a moment where we were with vaccines a year ago when this started.

    Everyone in Oxford team should get a knighthood.

    It's quite stunning how at odds public opinion in the EU is with reality, and it's all down to the incoherent political leadership who have turned a procurement debacle into a full-blown crisis.
    Do they actually take what their politicians say seriously in the EU? No wonder there was mutual incomprehension.
    All joking aside, it is being proven by the US, EU and UK that messaging is vital in public health.

    The US had Trumpism - see the anti-vax sentiment in his supporters
    The EU has has had a cacophony of voices - allowing anti-vax sentiment to grow.
    The UK has used a basis of pro-vaccine sentiment and built on that with campaigns to promote COVID vaccines.

    The results seem clear - if you actually lead on this issue, the result is very very different.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,260
    Cyclefree 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.
    Agree entirely.
    Also, I wouldn't book a holiday to a country whose government is actively trying to make my fellow citizens poorer and more dead.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 930
    Apparently the Hamilton Inquiry on whether Sturgeon broke the ministerial code reports today.

    It's terms of reference were very tightly drawn by Swinney, undoubtedly to protect Sturgeon, so most commentators expect a fudge. All the same, might be interesting...
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 3,736

    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

    I could be wrong, but that looks like "we've come up with a theoretical way that one could cause the other if it were to actually happen" rather than "we've found out that one does cause the other."

    It removes one of the blockers of "We can't find any signal in the noise and even if we did, there's no theoretical way anyone's suggested by which it could actually cause this" by coming up with a suggested way by which it could cause this (but I'm not sure if it precludes ANY other type of covid vaccine from doing it) - but does it do any more than that?
    (Other than by saying "And if it DOES somehow do this, we can treat it, anyway")
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,518
    Leon said:

    tlg86 said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,334
    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.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,851
    TOPPING said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,867

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,217

    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
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,417

    How does that translates seat wise??
    I saw a projection yesterday.
    No constituencies change hands!
    On the lists, SNP -2, Con -7, Lab +2, Green +4, LD +3.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,989
    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?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,162
    You can't decide what voting system is best in each setting until you have decided are the biggest things you are trying to achieve by getting everyone to have a vote in the first place.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,989
    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,518

    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
    They said something like 'as far south as Dartmoor'.
    Which, AIUI, is South of Snowdon, by quite some distance..
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,334

    TOPPING said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509
    "Sir Keir Starmer, would you stab a burglar in the chest with a carving knife?"

    "Of course, if it had to be done..."
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,989

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,334

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,334

    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514

    Leon said:

    tlg86 said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,331
    tlg86 said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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?!
    Indeed. Other countries are still going to be insisting on various testing and quarantining regimes, even if they let people in at all. The traditional Mediterranean destinations are probably going to try and open up, but the UK would be mad not to insist on quarantine for those returning from there.

    The biggest lesson from last summer, should be that unnecessary foreign travel needs to be avoided at all costs.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,851
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
    No, lockdown is a big ask. Enjoying a weekend in the UK instead of Ibiza is not a big ask.

    The point is we need to ensure there are no more lockdowns, no more restrictions. If restrictions can be lifted in this country then we are 99% back to normal.

    If we allow weekends away but then end up having to go back into lockdown then is that worth it to you? Is that worth the young sacrificing another few months or a year?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    algarkirk said:

    You can't decide what voting system is best in each setting until you have decided are the biggest things you are trying to achieve by getting everyone to have a vote in the first place.

    I agree.

    The problem is that we're trying to elect a government as well as a legislature.

    The British psyche is that a government should be able to pass whatever laws it wants. This was demonstrated by the vitriol against Parliament deciding it didn't want to pass the laws May's government wanted.

    Of course such thing would be alien to Americans, for example.

    If the main goal is to elect a government with a majority beyond all else, it seems rather pointless even electing a legislature in the first place.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,489
    TOPPING 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?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,096
    I note from the picture David H is voting for the Green Party. That came as a surprise.

    I agree with @IanB2 re David's article. Good analysis but why would you drop a crap system then revert to a worse system.

    I always felt that the '2nd preference only' looked like a nod to PR in the first round but revert to FPTP after that. A bit bizarre.

    I think both this and the list system for Europe were brought in by Labour (?). If so it was like an attempt to discredit PR as both are rubbish.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,702

    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.
    That discussion was had a few weeks back and it isn't.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,518
    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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?
    Co. Durham certainly, especially parts of the coast, and in the west of the County Palatine.

    When I was a student lodging in Sunderland my landlady used to let our rooms in the summer to Scots who came South for their holidays.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,514

    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
    Everywhere in the West Country, Lakes, Hebrides, is booked out for the rest of the year. All gone.

    My advice: try eastern England. Rural Suffolk. Ely. Lincoln. Or far north Scotland.

    Explore....
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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?
    Co. Durham certainly, especially parts of the coast, and in the west of the County Palatine.

    When I was a student lodging in Sunderland my landlady used to let our rooms in the summer to Scots who came South for their holidays.
    Whitley Bay used to be one of the biggest summer holiday destinations for Scots.

    Of course that was before they realised it was sh*t and that the Costa del Sol was much better.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509
    TOPPING said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
    Was there a global pandemic when I was travelling abroad? Did I say "You know what, I want to go birdwatching in an Ebola area....."

    Pillock.

    Here's a thought experiment. Go abroad on your holibobs. Later you are identified as the first person who brought back a particularly nasty strain of Covid. It closes the country down again and results in an extra 50,000 deaths. Are you going to be showing those holiday snaps to your neighbours?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,181
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,712
    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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?
    Careful now. The morlocks of the Red/Blue wall are wonderful people with carefully considered viewpoints that should be accommodated.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi0Xts6Y04
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,692
    Charles 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
    Tactical voting says hello
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,068
    MaxPB said:

    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.
    The EU is not actually adopting a transactional position towards the UK. Their actions actually threaten to harm them more than they do us. How will it help them if components for vaccines are not being exported from this country? How will it help them if British tourists are not actually visiting the Mediterranean or France? This is more a case of being harming themselves and shouting "that'll show you, you bastards!"
  • eekeek Posts: 14,867
    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
    It also trivialises 10% of our GDP - tourism (and allied things like hospitality)

    We really need to know the true threat from the SA variant. We still don't know if our vaccines prevent acute disease or death.

    We know Novavax DOES work, so that could be another way towards normality. You want to go abroad? You get a Novavax booster shot. Need to think creatively
    Want to go abroad - for the moment that's 2 weeks of house arrest when you return - if your work is happy with that please go ahead.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,068

    TOPPING 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?
    I do wonder what the money is going on? Fancy kit (with associated cost overruns) is all very well, but who will operate it?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,217
    malcolmg said:
    What on earth is happening to Scotland Malc
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,518
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    tlg86 said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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?
    It was my son and daughter-in-laws wedding anniversary last week and he sent us pictures of them celebrating in a roof-top bar in Bangkok. And a Thai friend, recently retired, is sending pictures of holiday trips all over the country.
    And surely the Oriental hasn't closed?
This discussion has been closed.