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

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

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

Inflammatory to say the least...

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

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

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

You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stocky said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

So do we.

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

Other, younger types not so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

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

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

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

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

When I was a lad in Fallingbostel in the early 1970s we had over 50k troops in Germany alone and more than 20k in NI.

As you will appreciate better than most our army is now too small to carry out any meaningful task for any extended period of time. We simply could not do what we did in Afghanistan for such an extended period for example. No doubt tech, specifically drones, will make absolute numbers less critical but there comes a point when what you have is a home defence force, not an army. I think that's where we are.

MarqueeMark said:

malcolmg said:

Scotland gets ever worse...........
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1373922858360004609

Contempt of court proceedings should be used when the actions of a person bring the standing of the judicial system into disrepute. Here, it is the actions of the use of contempt of court that is bringing the judicial system into disrepute. All to save the blushes of a lying politician.

eek said:

Leon said:

Stocky said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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.

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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

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

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....

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

The Oriental is absolutely gorgeous, but in a terrible location, now that all the fun - restaurants, bars, shopping - has moved east down the Sukhumvit Road.

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

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

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

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

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

When I was a lad in Fallingbostel in the early 1970s we had over 50k troops in Germany alone and more than 20k in NI.

As you will appreciate better than most our army is now too small to carry out any meaningful task for any extended period of time. We simply could not do what we did in Afghanistan for such an extended period for example. No doubt tech, specifically drones, will make absolute numbers less critical but there comes a point when what you have is a home defence force, not an army. I think that's where we are.

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

The Oriental is absolutely gorgeous, but in a terrible location, now that all the fun - restaurants, bars, shopping - has moved east down the Sukhumvit Road.

It's riverfront is good, though.

david_herdson said:

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

I see that another African politician has died of Covid:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/22/congos-opposition-candidate-kolelas-dies-a-day-after-poll

The combination of meeting lots of people, age much greater than the national average and air conditioned offices is not a good one.

As I mentioned yesterday, the traditional Congolese greeting is not the handshake, but rubbing alternate temples together. Covid couldn't have devised a better vector for transmission - two faces in extended close contact.

The Inuits say hello.

MattW said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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

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

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....

The run across from John O'Groats to Cape Wrath is spectacular. And deserted. (Well, it used to have quite a few Dutch and Germans, but not much else.)

Is that the one with the umpteen speed cameras?

another_richard said:

Stocky said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

The question is how willing you are to be imprisoned in your own house compared to how willing you are to be imprisoned in your own country.

I know people for whom the only inconvenience of the last year has been the restrictions on foreign holidays and others for whom the only thing that hasn't inconvenienced them are restrictions on foreign holidays.

malcolmg said:

Scotland gets ever worse...........
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1373922858360004609

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

Leon said:

OldKingCole said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

The Oriental is absolutely gorgeous, but in a terrible location, now that all the fun - restaurants, bars, shopping - has moved east down the Sukhumvit Road.

It's riverfront is good, though.

It is magnificent. I love getting the river ferry over to the gleaming spa

I may treat myself to a stay in winter 2022

Cookie said:

Gallowgate said:

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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

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

H*rtl*p**l?

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.

Bit harsh, that.
Whitley Bay's a pretty handsome town, with a lovely stretch of coastline.
It's also one of the driest spots in Northern England.
The only thing it has against it is the rarity of actual warmth.

malcolmg said:

Scotland gets ever worse...........
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1373922858360004609

DavidL said:

Really not sure I get this argument. Why is a vote "wasted" if I don't choose one of those who get through to the final round but not "wasted" when I vote for someone that loses in FPTP?

We certainly have more important things to worry about, on that I agree.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Do Londoners have an issue with the current voting system? Seems to me that yet again the Tories are imposing changes on a city that has run them out.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

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

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

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

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

When I was a lad in Fallingbostel in the early 1970s we had over 50k troops in Germany alone and more than 20k in NI.

As you will appreciate better than most our army is now too small to carry out any meaningful task for any extended period of time. We simply could not do what we did in Afghanistan for such an extended period for example. No doubt tech, specifically drones, will make absolute numbers less critical but there comes a point when what you have is a home defence force, not an army. I think that's where we are.

Didn't the recent Armenian-Azeri war show that troops and tanks are virtually defenceless against well organised drones and missiles? That is the future. Large armies are finished. Analogue military in a world of digital wars.

The same will soon be true of large aircraft carriers. Ooops

IanB2 said:

david_herdson 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.

It will not surprise you to know I disagree. I believe your characterisation of SV is wrong.

SV does not give a second preference in the way you suggest. As I'd hoped I'd made clear in the leader, many second preferences are simply junked - and those which are junked are often a matter of chance. It is that inequality which is what is so wrong with SV: that some votes literally count when others don't - and that which ones do (or don't) is often quite random.

SV *doesn't* at all ensure that the winner receives more than 50% of the votes; it ensures that they receive more than 50% of the votes not discarded. In fact, of the 38 elections where there were five candidates, for example, eight were elected on the first round. Of the other 30, only seven won more than half the total votes after redistributions - and in every one of those cases, the winning candidate had a lead of at least 14% in the first round. I've not done a similar analysis for the other SV elections but I'd be surprised if they result in a strikingly different outcome.

What Ian doesn't seem to accept is the distinction between votes for a losing candidate and votes that, despite being valid in all other respects, are discarded just because of a feature of the system. A vote does not 'count' because it elects someone; it counts because someone cast it. But all too often, SV does not count it.

As for his unevidenced comment that the claim that "votes aren’t wasted under our current system is absurd" is a good example of 'weak case: shout louder'.

You don't need to shout very loud to establish that our system wastes millions of votes. There are countless people with lived experienced of it.

And Tories who - with characteristic self-interested hypocrisy - then exploit that fact by campaigning on slogans such as "A Liberal vote is a wasted vote" (exchange Green/UKIP etc.)

Burgessian said:

malcolmg said:

Scotland gets ever worse...........
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1373922858360004609

Yes, but I have a feeling she will ride the storm, regardless of Hamilton and the parliamentary inquiry. It's been turned into a Salmond vs Sturgeon choice in the public mind and most people, particularly women, shudder at the sight of Salmond. The fact that she was, for many years, his chief myrmidon, and knew everything there is to know about him, counts for nowt.

MattW said:

2 on-topic questions:

Why was this system used in London in the first place?
(Was it like modified d'Hondt in Scotland an attempt to wire in a Lab majority?)

Would any Mayoral results have been changed by this?

For me, I think this is deckchair-rearrangement for all it's practical impact.

My one reflection is whether this is groundwork for a review of all devolution systems - which would make sense democratically (?) because they are mainly ready for a review and rather broken, and perhaps politically because an overall thing might be cover for whatever will be done in Scotland. There is also the reality that perhaps it needs to be evened across parts of the country.

God knows how they will do that latter, mind.

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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

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

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....

The run across from John O'Groats to Cape Wrath is spectacular. And deserted. (Well, it used to have quite a few Dutch and Germans, but not much else.)

MattW said:

MarqueeMark said:

malcolmg said:

Scotland gets ever worse...........
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1373922858360004609

Contempt of court proceedings should be used when the actions of a person bring the standing of the judicial system into disrepute. Here, it is the actions of the use of contempt of court that is bringing the judicial system into disrepute. All to save the blushes of a lying politician.

Jigsaw identification of complainants allegedly possible due to his blog-reports on the Salmond Trial.

Burgessian said:

malcolmg said:

Scotland gets ever worse...........
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1373922858360004609

Yes, but I have a feeling she will ride the storm, regardless of Hamilton and the parliamentary inquiry. It's been turned into a Salmond vs Sturgeon choice in the public mind and most people, particularly women, shudder at the sight of Salmond. The fact that she was, for many years, his chief myrmidon, and knew everything there is to know about him, counts for nowt.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

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

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

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

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

When I was a lad in Fallingbostel in the early 1970s we had over 50k troops in Germany alone and more than 20k in NI.

As you will appreciate better than most our army is now too small to carry out any meaningful task for any extended period of time. We simply could not do what we did in Afghanistan for such an extended period for example. No doubt tech, specifically drones, will make absolute numbers less critical but there comes a point when what you have is a home defence force, not an army. I think that's where we are.

Didn't the recent Armenian-Azeri war show that troops and tanks are virtually defenceless against well organised drones and missiles? That is the future. Large armies are finished. Analogue military in a world of digital wars.

The same will soon be true of large aircraft carriers. Ooops

eek said:

OldKingCole said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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

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

H*rtl*p**l?

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.

Um that was before the days the Costa del Sol was an option.

And there is nowt wrong with a day at Cullercoats or South Shields if you have small children. Just remember that you need wind breaks protecting you in all directions...

I know that. I was making a funny wasn't I

You missed the fact - I said a day. What are you going to do for the rest of the week when its peeing down?

Not on the East coast it won't be. Freezing, maybe.

I live there - it rains more than you think especially if you are only there for x days.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

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

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

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

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

When I was a lad in Fallingbostel in the early 1970s we had over 50k troops in Germany alone and more than 20k in NI.

As you will appreciate better than most our army is now too small to carry out any meaningful task for any extended period of time. We simply could not do what we did in Afghanistan for such an extended period for example. No doubt tech, specifically drones, will make absolute numbers less critical but there comes a point when what you have is a home defence force, not an army. I think that's where we are.

Didn't the recent Armenian-Azeri war show that troops and tanks are virtually defenceless against well organised drones and missiles? That is the future. Large armies are finished. Analogue military in a world of digital wars.

The same will soon be true of large aircraft carriers. Ooops

That's why I mentioned drones. We will need a different kind of armed forces. The days of massed divisions have clearly passed but how do you control an area without boots on the ground?

A small well armed force - but with lots of drones. Drones really do change everything. As you noted

I like to see Britain well defended but we don't need a large standing army, not any more. It's like having a large cavalry in about 1910

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

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

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

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

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

When I was a lad in Fallingbostel in the early 1970s we had over 50k troops in Germany alone and more than 20k in NI.

As you will appreciate better than most our army is now too small to carry out any meaningful task for any extended period of time. We simply could not do what we did in Afghanistan for such an extended period for example. No doubt tech, specifically drones, will make absolute numbers less critical but there comes a point when what you have is a home defence force, not an army. I think that's where we are.

Didn't the recent Armenian-Azeri war show that troops and tanks are virtually defenceless against well organised drones and missiles? That is the future. Large armies are finished. Analogue military in a world of digital wars.

The same will soon be true of large aircraft carriers. Ooops

That's why I mentioned drones. We will need a different kind of armed forces. The days of massed divisions have clearly passed but how do you control an area without boots on the ground?

A small well armed force - but with lots of drones. Drones really do change everything. As you noted

I like to see Britain well defended but we don't need a large standing army, not any more. It's like having a large cavalry in about 1910

Theuniondivvie said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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

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

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....

The run across from John O'Groats to Cape Wrath is spectacular. And deserted. (Well, it used to have quite a few Dutch and Germans, but not much else.)

The NC500 has fcuked all that, can’t move for lardy Clarkson types (assuming their pent up desire to display their mediocre driving skills is allowed free rein once again).

david_herdson said:

kamski said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

Really not sure I get this argument. Why is a vote "wasted" if I don't choose one of those who get through to the final round but not "wasted" when I vote for someone that loses in FPTP?

We certainly have more important things to worry about, on that I agree.

Because your vote is not counted. Literally. You wanted to register a second preference, the system allowed you to do so, and yet it was not counted at all; your voice is missing from the result, not as a consequence of abstention but because of the vaguary and chance of the mechanism and combined vote.

At least, when you vote for a losing candidate under FPTP, your choice for them (and implicitly, against the winner), is recorded and acts as political mandate for or against the winner, and helps frame actions within the politicians term and future elections.

This is just silly. Your first choice is counted and recorded in exactly the same way as FPTP.

Yes. And if that's the decisive round, fine. But then, if that's the decisive round, we might as well have used FPTP.

On the other hand, if it's not the decisive round, the vote may well not be counted - and whether it is or not is often a matter of chance. Voting systems should not depend on chance and should not throw out what are essentially valid votes. Either use FPTP or use AV but don't mix and match.

eek said:

OldKingCole said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

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

Just say no.

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

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

Pop Quiz: do you prefer:

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

or

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

I know where I stand.

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

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

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

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

H*rtl*p**l?

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.

Um that was before the days the Costa del Sol was an option.

And there is nowt wrong with a day at Cullercoats or South Shields if you have small children. Just remember that you need wind breaks protecting you in all directions...

I know that. I was making a funny wasn't I

You missed the fact - I said a day. What are you going to do for the rest of the week when its peeing down?

Not on the East coast it won't be. Freezing, maybe.

I live there - it rains more than you think especially if you are only there for x days.

kjh said:

david_herdson 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.

It will not surprise you to know I disagree. I believe your characterisation of SV is wrong.

SV does not give a second preference in the way you suggest. As I'd hoped I'd made clear in the leader, many second preferences are simply junked - and those which are junked are often a matter of chance. It is that inequality which is what is so wrong with SV: that some votes literally count when others don't - and that which ones do (or don't) is often quite random.

SV *doesn't* at all ensure that the winner receives more than 50% of the votes; it ensures that they receive more than 50% of the votes not discarded. In fact, of the 38 elections where there were five candidates, for example, eight were elected on the first round. Of the other 30, only seven won more than half the total votes after redistributions - and in every one of those cases, the winning candidate had a lead of at least 14% in the first round. I've not done a similar analysis for the other SV elections but I'd be surprised if they result in a strikingly different outcome.

What Ian doesn't seem to accept is the distinction between votes for a losing candidate and votes that, despite being valid in all other respects, are discarded just because of a feature of the system. A vote does not 'count' because it elects someone; it counts because someone cast it. But all too often, SV does not count it.

As for his unevidenced comment that the claim that "votes aren’t wasted under our current system is absurd" is a good example of 'weak case: shout louder'.

I don't think the criticism is your analysis which is spot on in my opinion, but to resolve the problem you revert to a worse system. Why not do the job properly and have multiple transfer votes as in STV (or AV for a single position). The issue with SV is it is half cocked. Just do it properly.

I disagree with your statement that FPTP provides equality and while it is familiar and simple, they are not good reasons. After all if you want that a dictatorship wins hand down.

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

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

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

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

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

When I was a lad in Fallingbostel in the early 1970s we had over 50k troops in Germany alone and more than 20k in NI.

As you will appreciate better than most our army is now too small to carry out any meaningful task for any extended period of time. We simply could not do what we did in Afghanistan for such an extended period for example. No doubt tech, specifically drones, will make absolute numbers less critical but there comes a point when what you have is a home defence force, not an army. I think that's where we are.

Didn't the recent Armenian-Azeri war show that troops and tanks are virtually defenceless against well organised drones and missiles? That is the future. Large armies are finished. Analogue military in a world of digital wars.

The same will soon be true of large aircraft carriers. Ooops

We still need troops for UN peacekeeping and NATO operations and special forces in particular for counter terrorism operations.

We need submarines to launch missiles and drones and aircraft carriers to launch airstrikes and also in the event, however unlikely, we needed to recapture the Falklands again. We also need to ensure we continue to have a larger army than Argentina on that basis too

We're not far from the moment when all the fighting will be done by robots and drones, remotely operated or self drive tanks, everything. It makes obvious sense, why risk a human life when a computer in a robot can do the job, and do it better?

Unless civilisation collapses and the technology disappears it is likely there will never again be a large army sent to conquer a foreign land, by a major power. Except maybe China retaking Taiwan, but even there I wonder if they would bother with troops and landing ships and all that antiquated malarkey. A few hypersonic missiles, jam Taiwan's internet, retake the place without a boot on the ground. Sorted

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

Scotland gets ever worse...........
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1373922858360004609

What on earth is happening to Scotland Malc

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

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

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

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

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

When I was a lad in Fallingbostel in the early 1970s we had over 50k troops in Germany alone and more than 20k in NI.

As you will appreciate better than most our army is now too small to carry out any meaningful task for any extended period of time. We simply could not do what we did in Afghanistan for such an extended period for example. No doubt tech, specifically drones, will make absolute numbers less critical but there comes a point when what you have is a home defence force, not an army. I think that's where we are.

Didn't the recent Armenian-Azeri war show that troops and tanks are virtually defenceless against well organised drones and missiles? That is the future. Large armies are finished. Analogue military in a world of digital wars.

The same will soon be true of large aircraft carriers. Ooops

That's why I mentioned drones. We will need a different kind of armed forces. The days of massed divisions have clearly passed but how do you control an area without boots on the ground?

A small well armed force - but with lots of drones. Drones really do change everything. As you noted

I like to see Britain well defended but we don't need a large standing army, not any more. It's like having a large cavalry in about 1910

IanB2 said:

david_herdson 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.

It will not surprise you to know I disagree. I believe your characterisation of SV is wrong.

SV does not give a second preference in the way you suggest. As I'd hoped I'd made clear in the leader, many second preferences are simply junked - and those which are junked are often a matter of chance. It is that inequality which is what is so wrong with SV: that some votes literally count when others don't - and that which ones do (or don't) is often quite random.

SV *doesn't* at all ensure that the winner receives more than 50% of the votes; it ensures that they receive more than 50% of the votes not discarded. In fact, of the 38 elections where there were five candidates, for example, eight were elected on the first round. Of the other 30, only seven won more than half the total votes after redistributions - and in every one of those cases, the winning candidate had a lead of at least 14% in the first round. I've not done a similar analysis for the other SV elections but I'd be surprised if they result in a strikingly different outcome.

What Ian doesn't seem to accept is the distinction between votes for a losing candidate and votes that, despite being valid in all other respects, are discarded just because of a feature of the system. A vote does not 'count' because it elects someone; it counts because someone cast it. But all too often, SV does not count it.

As for his unevidenced comment that the claim that "votes aren’t wasted under our current system is absurd" is a good example of 'weak case: shout louder'.

You don't need to shout very loud to establish that our system wastes millions of votes. There are countless people with lived experienced of it.

And Tories who - with characteristic self-interested hypocrisy - then exploit that fact by campaigning on slogans such as "A Liberal vote is a wasted vote" (exchange Green/UKIP etc.)

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1373925514335944706?s=20

ClippP said:

I thought I was not going to agree with David Herdson, because Conservatives are always wrong when they talk about voting systems. But then I read his piece, and I was persuaded.

If this system was introduced in 2000, then it was under a Labour Government, and they are almost as corrupt and self-interested as the Tories.

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1373925514335944706?s=20

Story in The Herald this morning deconstructing that poll. Points out that the SNP may "squeak" a majority which is a gain from their current position. It will be interesting to see how the perceived momentum away from the SNP proceeds - I suspect that the final independent report will provoke "is that it" responses and switch the focus back onto the integrity of the Tory leakers who tried to game it for electoral purposes.

david_herdson said:

kamski said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

Really not sure I get this argument. Why is a vote "wasted" if I don't choose one of those who get through to the final round but not "wasted" when I vote for someone that loses in FPTP?

We certainly have more important things to worry about, on that I agree.

Because your vote is not counted. Literally. You wanted to register a second preference, the system allowed you to do so, and yet it was not counted at all; your voice is missing from the result, not as a consequence of abstention but because of the vaguary and chance of the mechanism and combined vote.

At least, when you vote for a losing candidate under FPTP, your choice for them (and implicitly, against the winner), is recorded and acts as political mandate for or against the winner, and helps frame actions within the politicians term and future elections.

This is just silly. Your first choice is counted and recorded in exactly the same way as FPTP.

Yes. And if that's the decisive round, fine. But then, if that's the decisive round, we might as well have used FPTP.

On the other hand, if it's not the decisive round, the vote may well not be counted - and whether it is or not is often a matter of chance. Voting systems should not depend on chance and should not throw out what are essentially valid votes. Either use FPTP or use AV but don't mix and match.

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

TOPPING said:

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

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

You know who you are.

I thought it was to 70,000?

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

When I was a lad in Fallingbostel in the early 1970s we had over 50k troops in Germany alone and more than 20k in NI.

As you will appreciate better than most our army is now too small to carry out any meaningful task for any extended period of time. We simply could not do what we did in Afghanistan for such an extended period for example. No doubt tech, specifically drones, will make absolute numbers less critical but there comes a point when what you have is a home defence force, not an army. I think that's where we are.

Didn't the recent Armenian-Azeri war show that troops and tanks are virtually defenceless against well organised drones and missiles? That is the future. Large armies are finished. Analogue military in a world of digital wars.

The same will soon be true of large aircraft carriers. Ooops

We still need troops for UN peacekeeping and NATO operations and special forces in particular for counter terrorism operations.

We need submarines to launch missiles and drones and aircraft carriers to launch airstrikes and also in the event, however unlikely, we needed to recapture the Falklands again. We also need to ensure we continue to have a larger army than Argentina on that basis too

We're not far from the moment when all the fighting will be done by robots and drones, remotely operated or self drive tanks, everything. It makes obvious sense, why risk a human life when a computer in a robot can do the job, and do it better?

Unless civilisation collapses and the technology disappears it is likely there will never again be a large army sent to conquer a foreign land, by a major power. Except maybe China retaking Taiwan, but even there I wonder if they would bother with troops and landing ships and all that antiquated malarkey. A few hypersonic missiles, jam Taiwan's internet, retake the place without a boot on the ground. Sorted