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

123457»

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,344
  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 384
    MaxPB said:

    F1: call me old-fashioned but I like just having a team principal rather than a committee:
    https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1373953632048152577

    That kind of structure made McLaren a midfield team, it's taken them 10 years to recover and start fighting near the top again. Rule by committee doesn't work.
    Anybody in software development who doesn't run a mile when told everything is centred around a self-organsing team with a matrix structure and a delivery-focused mindset is an idiot - I presume the same goes for F1
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,322
    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 860

    Andy_JS said:

    I favour STV but I don't *hate* first past the post. What I do hate is zealots pretending there are literally no downsides to it and that it's the most perfect electoral system ever created.

    The only good thing about FPTP is the drama it provides on election night. Otherwise it's a rubbish system that means an MP can be elected with 26% of the vote, as in Inverness in 1992.
    Ah but that 26% is an undeniable mandate of representation.
    Since no other candidate got 27% then yes.

    Plus you're making a ridiculously extreme argument based on a ridiculous edge case, not even at the last election . . . but eight General Elections ago. Over 5000 MPs have been elected in that time so you're talking a 0.02% example.

    If you're advocating STV or other voting systems then MPs can be elected on less than 26%, so how is that an improvement? 🤔
    Focusing on the macro not the micro, STV ensures a more proportionate legislature whilst retaining a constituency link. It also gives you choice in your local representative so if I don't like the Con representative for my area I can reach out to the Lab one to help solve my problem.
    Better than that though. If you want to vote Conservative but cannot stand one of the candidates, you can vote for another Con candidate as first choice instead.
    If you are lucky, your unfavourite Con candidate will not get elected at all.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,920

    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.

    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20

    This is why the additional member system is a decent compromise. There is little point in small parties standing for constituencies - their support is too diffuse. But combine it all together into a top-up and they're all good.

    If young jobbie here thinks he's already lost to the SNP then so much for the comeback for non-indy parties. Rutherglen is the kind of seat where they used to weigh the Labour vote...
    Both the Greens and James Kelly know that the Greens will take more SNP votes than Labour party votes so he wants them to stand - while the Greens are very happy to let the SNP win the seat while they hoover up some additional seats.

    As I've commented a while back I know SNP voters who will be voting Green on the regional list simply because they know the SNP doesn't need that second vote.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,322

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
    Yes. Again, I'm on your side on this (nominally).

    My point is that there are clearly quite a lot of scenarios where the system doesn't work as it should, and denying that is pointless and makes you (and, by extension, me) sound dumb.
    Absolutely, no system is perfect. I never said it was.

    Of course there are issues, and when there are having the option to 'kick the bastards out' is important. Life isn't perfect, nothing in life is, so don't take it as me saying the system works perfectly - it works well enough.
    Kicking the bastards out isn't a safety valve for when there are issues - it's a necessary component of a well-functioning system. Indeed, the main problem identified with FPTP is how difficult it can be to get rid of some very bad candidates - albeit, it's unclear which other systems would do better (list-based systems in particular are notorious).

    Take me, for instance. I'm a Tory voter in a constituency with a fairly safe, but moronic, MP, whom I don't like - he was a bit of a No Deal diehard for most of 2019 (for a pro-Remain constituency) and is generally considered to do poorly on local issues. Tory candidates are generally quite difficult to deselect, so how do I get rid of him without replacing him with someone worse?
    There's no such thing as a safe seat in the long term.

    From Labour's heartlands in Scotland, to the red wall, to Tory since the 19th Century Canterbury, the past eleven years should have shown that.

    If a seat doesn't change hands it just means a plurality of voters in the election chose the same option again. They retain the right to change their mind next time.
    At least 2/3 of seats have been won by the same party UK wide as the election before though, even in 1997, 2010 or 2019.

    If you live in a safe seat, party activists will put out one election address there and then shift across to the nearest marginal to do the rest of their leafletting and canvassing,

    If we had PR those 2/3 would see more campaigning at election time to win seats which would be available on the regional top up list even if the constituency was unlikely to change hands
    That's why I said in the long term.

    The 1/3 that see more campaigning changes from one election to the next too.

    If the result in an area is a foregone conclusion then that's just because the voters there have not changed their mind. I'm not expecting the Tories to be competitive in Walton, but constituencies near it just down the East Lancs road or along the M62 or M6 that were safe red are now blue. Times change.
    Yes but it will almost always be only those 1/3 which see a change of winner.

    Canterbury for example only change because of social change and an influx of students, the Red Wall because of Brexit and even then in 2017 and 2019 most other seats did not change hands.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,390
    Sky

    Macron confirms Boris spoke to him yesterday re the vaccine export ban
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,322
    eek said:

    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.

    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20

    This is why the additional member system is a decent compromise. There is little point in small parties standing for constituencies - their support is too diffuse. But combine it all together into a top-up and they're all good.

    If young jobbie here thinks he's already lost to the SNP then so much for the comeback for non-indy parties. Rutherglen is the kind of seat where they used to weigh the Labour vote...
    Both the Greens and James Kelly know that the Greens will take more SNP votes than Labour party votes so he wants them to stand - while the Greens are very happy to let the SNP win the seat while they hoover up some additional seats.

    As I've commented a while back I know SNP voters who will be voting Green on the regional list simply because they know the SNP doesn't need that second vote.
    If the SNP fail to get the 65 seats they need for a majority and indyref2, as they achieved in 2011, it will be the list that does it and losses to the Greens could be part of that

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1373677513264795650?s=20
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 63,037
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    Don't be ridiculous.

    Biden playing up his Irish heritage on St Paddy's Day changes nothing.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,507

    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.
    Indeed snow highly unlikely for 95% of the population. Perhaps some on the very high ground where almost nobody lives.

    The Easter snow thing is a myth, by the way.
    No its not.
    Snow is marginally more common in almost every region of the UK in December than in March as a whole, and significantly more common in December than in late March and April (when Easter falls). Snow at both Easter and Christmas is rare (most UK snowfall is in January and February) but it is somewhat rarer at Easter than at Christmas.

    The adage is a canard.

    https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&FMM=12&LMM=12&FYY=2000&LYY=2021&LANG=en&R=0&LEVEL=162&MOD=MOA&ART=SNT&OFFSET=08&NOREGION=0
    I've seen it from many professionals at the Met - are they all wrong? As in actual recorded snow on Dec 25th and the day that easter falls?

    Happy to accept its wrong but would like the specific evidence...
    It's wrong. The data on snowfall by month is in the public domain.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,538
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    Not enough for America to give Ireland any vaccine

    https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-martin-vaccines-5384269-Mar2021/
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,344

    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.
    Indeed snow highly unlikely for 95% of the population. Perhaps some on the very high ground where almost nobody lives.

    The Easter snow thing is a myth, by the way.
    No its not.
    Snow is marginally more common in almost every region of the UK in December than in March as a whole, and significantly more common in December than in late March and April (when Easter falls). Snow at both Easter and Christmas is rare (most UK snowfall is in January and February) but it is somewhat rarer at Easter than at Christmas.

    The adage is a canard.

    https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&FMM=12&LMM=12&FYY=2000&LYY=2021&LANG=en&R=0&LEVEL=162&MOD=MOA&ART=SNT&OFFSET=08&NOREGION=0
    I've seen it from many professionals at the Met - are they all wrong? As in actual recorded snow on Dec 25th and the day that easter falls?

    Happy to accept its wrong but would like the specific evidence...
    It's wrong. The data on snowfall by month is in the public domain.
    Is this the difference between comparing snowfall rates over an entire month, vs on two different days.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,967

    Andy_JS said:

    "French newspapers all turn on Macron over AstraZeneca vaccine blunder: 'F*** YOU!'
    FRENCH newspapers have turned on Emmanuel Macron, branding his Government's decision to put millions of people in Paris and parts of northern France into a fresh lockdown an "admission of failure"."

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1412493/France-news-Emmanuel-Macron-Paris-lockdown-latest-AstraZeneca-vaccine-vn

    Shame we're not still in the EU. I'm sure by now the good folk of Europe would be clamouring for Boris to step in and take command. That may or may not be a good thing, but would still do wonders for British prestige. I always knew that Britain's time as the most venerated country in Europe would come. It's a pity impetuous fools like Farage had to come along with their abysmal timing.
    On simple humanitarian grounds, ensuring Boris does not take command of Europe is a very good rationale for Brexit.

    Let's be honest. Boris has really lucked out. Again.

    Whoever realised the importance of vaccines in the UK Government last Summer, we can be damn sure it wasn't Boris.

    Boris was already beyond-lucky with his choice of opponents -- Red Ken, Theresa and Jeremy. And now he is facing a fading Merkel and a farcical Macron in the Vaccine Wars.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    I don’t think you understand what the “special relationship” refers to....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 19,045

    MattW said:

    felix said:

    Lunacy in Europe episode 555 - Spain will welcome German tourists over the Easter period while continuing to ban any internal travel to Spanish nationals. Cases in Spain are currently low. Caes in Germany are high.

    Why are Germany allowing non-essential foreign travel? Crazy. In the first wave, they sensibly closed their borders.
    I think Germany is cruising for a bruising.

    AFAICS they are lifting restrictions at a time when COVID infection is increasing when about 91% of their population have not been vaccinated at all. And new variants are around.

    Quite a lot of mortality is probably already booked in, as we found over Christmas.
    I think they’re underestimating the B117 variant. Their rate of cases has overtaken the US and could easily get out of control.
    https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1373702863281651720?s=21
    As we found here, in the UK, a gentle rise in cases doesn't stay gentle.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,538

    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.
    Indeed snow highly unlikely for 95% of the population. Perhaps some on the very high ground where almost nobody lives.

    The Easter snow thing is a myth, by the way.
    No its not.
    Snow is marginally more common in almost every region of the UK in December than in March as a whole, and significantly more common in December than in late March and April (when Easter falls). Snow at both Easter and Christmas is rare (most UK snowfall is in January and February) but it is somewhat rarer at Easter than at Christmas.

    The adage is a canard.

    https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&FMM=12&LMM=12&FYY=2000&LYY=2021&LANG=en&R=0&LEVEL=162&MOD=MOA&ART=SNT&OFFSET=08&NOREGION=0
    I've seen it from many professionals at the Met - are they all wrong? As in actual recorded snow on Dec 25th and the day that easter falls?

    Happy to accept its wrong but would like the specific evidence...
    It's wrong. The data on snowfall by month is in the public domain.
    I too have seen this adage trotted out my multiple weather experts. Surprised it is wrong. Also pleased, because I am heartily sick of winter and snow and today there is a hint of spring warmth
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,390

    Andy_JS said:

    "French newspapers all turn on Macron over AstraZeneca vaccine blunder: 'F*** YOU!'
    FRENCH newspapers have turned on Emmanuel Macron, branding his Government's decision to put millions of people in Paris and parts of northern France into a fresh lockdown an "admission of failure"."

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1412493/France-news-Emmanuel-Macron-Paris-lockdown-latest-AstraZeneca-vaccine-vn

    Shame we're not still in the EU. I'm sure by now the good folk of Europe would be clamouring for Boris to step in and take command. That may or may not be a good thing, but would still do wonders for British prestige. I always knew that Britain's time as the most venerated country in Europe would come. It's a pity impetuous fools like Farage had to come along with their abysmal timing.
    On simple humanitarian grounds, ensuring Boris does not take command of Europe is a very good rationale for Brexit.

    Let's be honest. Boris has really lucked out. Again.

    Whoever realised the importance of vaccines in the UK Government last Summer, we can be damn sure it wasn't Boris.

    Boris was already beyond-lucky with his choice of opponents -- Red Ken, Theresa and Jeremy. And now he is facing a fading Merkel and a farcical Macron in the Vaccine Wars.
    Not to forget UVDL
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,267
    eek said:

    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.

    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20

    This is why the additional member system is a decent compromise. There is little point in small parties standing for constituencies - their support is too diffuse. But combine it all together into a top-up and they're all good.

    If young jobbie here thinks he's already lost to the SNP then so much for the comeback for non-indy parties. Rutherglen is the kind of seat where they used to weigh the Labour vote...
    Both the Greens and James Kelly know that the Greens will take more SNP votes than Labour party votes so he wants them to stand - while the Greens are very happy to let the SNP win the seat while they hoover up some additional seats.

    As I've commented a while back I know SNP voters who will be voting Green on the regional list simply because they know the SNP doesn't need that second vote.
    And this is the biggest downside to this form of AMS. When do two parties effectively become one and are simply gaming the system?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,516
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    Not enough for America to give Ireland any vaccine

    https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-martin-vaccines-5384269-Mar2021/
    That would involve giving vaccine to the EU as a whole though. Ireland would just be left with a pro-rata share, the Chinese and Russian-loving EU bagging the rest.

    "We'd love to help Ireland, but..."
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,538

    Andy_JS said:

    "French newspapers all turn on Macron over AstraZeneca vaccine blunder: 'F*** YOU!'
    FRENCH newspapers have turned on Emmanuel Macron, branding his Government's decision to put millions of people in Paris and parts of northern France into a fresh lockdown an "admission of failure"."

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1412493/France-news-Emmanuel-Macron-Paris-lockdown-latest-AstraZeneca-vaccine-vn

    Shame we're not still in the EU. I'm sure by now the good folk of Europe would be clamouring for Boris to step in and take command. That may or may not be a good thing, but would still do wonders for British prestige. I always knew that Britain's time as the most venerated country in Europe would come. It's a pity impetuous fools like Farage had to come along with their abysmal timing.
    On simple humanitarian grounds, ensuring Boris does not take command of Europe is a very good rationale for Brexit.

    Let's be honest. Boris has really lucked out. Again.

    Whoever realised the importance of vaccines in the UK Government last Summer, we can be damn sure it wasn't Boris.

    Boris was already beyond-lucky with his choice of opponents -- Red Ken, Theresa and Jeremy. And now he is facing a fading Merkel and a farcical Macron in the Vaccine Wars.
    Wrong. Read this interview with Kate Bingham. It WAS Boris who chose her, because he and Hancock realised vaccines were the way out


    "When the call from Downing Street came, it could not have been clearer. ‘We need you to stop people from dying,’ Boris Johnson told Kate Bingham, as he asked her to lead the Government’s search for a Covid-19 vaccine.

    "It was early May last year, just weeks after the Prime Minister had experienced, first-hand, the full horror of coronavirus. ‘He appreciated that vaccines might not be perfect from day one,’ she recalls. ‘But he said, “We need to start saving lives and I need you to help.”’"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/work/kate-bingham-exclusive-interview-eu-leaders-undermining-vaccine/
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,267
    My dad tells me she was on the Daily Politics and refused to condemn the rioters in Bristol last night.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,322

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    I don’t think you understand what the “special relationship” refers to....
    Regardless, we are clearly not the closest ally of Biden's US, if Boris tried to move the hard border with the EU from the Irish Sea to Ireland to appease the DUP, then Biden would clearly side with Ireland over us
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,557
    Don't know if this has been reported here yet - AZN US trial data in.
    - 80% effective against symptomatic COVID
    - 100% effective against hospitalization and severe COVID
    - no link to blood clots

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/03/22/astrazeneca-vaccine-100-effective-in-preventing-severe-disease-and-hospitalizations-us-trials-show/?utm_campaign=forbes&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Gordie&sh=6c2c36394364
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Refused to condemn violence and rioting. Fortunately her views don't have proportional representation in Government :wink:

    https://twitter.com/addicted2newz/status/1373982755504144385
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,344
    TimT said:

    Don't know if this has been reported here yet - AZN US trial data in.
    - 80% effective against symptomatic COVID
    - 100% effective against hospitalization and severe COVID
    - no link to blood clots

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/03/22/astrazeneca-vaccine-100-effective-in-preventing-severe-disease-and-hospitalizations-us-trials-show/?utm_campaign=forbes&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Gordie&sh=6c2c36394364

    Is there an expected ETA on approval? It'll help the US roll-out no end.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,571
    edited March 22
    tlg86 said:

    My dad tells me she was on the Daily Politics and refused to condemn the rioters in Bristol last night.
    Sigh. The problem Starmer has is that getting rid of her wont win any Tory votes in itself but it very well may cost some votes on his far left.

    He should probably withdraw the whip in any case because not doing so with further strengthen existing Tory votes and make it even harder to win them over.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,538

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    Not enough for America to give Ireland any vaccine

    https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-martin-vaccines-5384269-Mar2021/
    That would involve giving vaccine to the EU as a whole though. Ireland would just be left with a pro-rata share, the Chinese and Russian-loving EU bagging the rest.

    "We'd love to help Ireland, but..."
    I think the Irish were hoping for a quiet deal and a nice little million dose shipment to Cork harbour

    But yes, Ireland's EU membership would have complicated any offer from the USA. An EU downside for Dublin....
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    I don’t think you understand what the “special relationship” refers to....
    Regardless, we are clearly not the closest ally of Biden's US, if Boris tried to move the hard border with the EU from the Irish Sea to Ireland to appease the DUP, then Biden would clearly side with Ireland over us
    Firstly, any PM with a majority of 80 who still feels the need to “appease” the clowns in the DUP is an idiot. Have you lot forgotten what the DUP is? It isn’t the UUP or anything like it.

    Secondly, when the NI Protocol issues come to a head, the US President will be guided by State and will make careful statements designed not to wind up either community. You’ll probably see Clinton pulled in, and a concerted effort to negotiate.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,700
    Chameleon said:

    Labour going forwards in London and Scotland, now the Red Wall must be the focus

    Is this where I point out that in 2019 Lab won London 48% to 32%, so that poll represents a 0.5% Lab->Con swing (i.e. no change)?

    In 2017 Lab won 55% to 32%.
    The rest of us just laughed when we saw the post but you are quite right. In addition the LDs being well down could mean the Tories would gain a couple of London seats on that poll.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,168
    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
    Yes. Again, I'm on your side on this (nominally).

    My point is that there are clearly quite a lot of scenarios where the system doesn't work as it should, and denying that is pointless and makes you (and, by extension, me) sound dumb.
    Absolutely, no system is perfect. I never said it was.

    Of course there are issues, and when there are having the option to 'kick the bastards out' is important. Life isn't perfect, nothing in life is, so don't take it as me saying the system works perfectly - it works well enough.
    Kicking the bastards out isn't a safety valve for when there are issues - it's a necessary component of a well-functioning system. Indeed, the main problem identified with FPTP is how difficult it can be to get rid of some very bad candidates - albeit, it's unclear which other systems would do better (list-based systems in particular are notorious).

    Take me, for instance. I'm a Tory voter in a constituency with a fairly safe, but moronic, MP, whom I don't like - he was a bit of a No Deal diehard for most of 2019 (for a pro-Remain constituency) and is generally considered to do poorly on local issues. Tory candidates are generally quite difficult to deselect, so how do I get rid of him without replacing him with someone worse?
    You are asking a non question. The system provides you with:
    Everyone can stand
    Everyone can organise
    Everyone can belong to a party
    Parties decide who stands for the party
    Everyone can vote
    You vote for a person and we have found it convenient but not compulsory to link person and party.

    What is it you want that you haven't got, and which a coherent system can provide?

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,571

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    Not enough for America to give Ireland any vaccine

    https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-martin-vaccines-5384269-Mar2021/
    That would involve giving vaccine to the EU as a whole though. Ireland would just be left with a pro-rata share, the Chinese and Russian-loving EU bagging the rest.

    "We'd love to help Ireland, but..."
    This doesn't make sense because Malta etc have procured their own vaccines and have not been required to pro-rata share them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,322
    edited March 22

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    I don’t think you understand what the “special relationship” refers to....
    Regardless, we are clearly not the closest ally of Biden's US, if Boris tried to move the hard border with the EU from the Irish Sea to Ireland to appease the DUP, then Biden would clearly side with Ireland over us
    Firstly, any PM with a majority of 80 who still feels the need to “appease” the clowns in the DUP is an idiot. Have you lot forgotten what the DUP is? It isn’t the UUP or anything like it.

    Secondly, when the NI Protocol issues come to a head, the US President will be guided by State and will make careful statements designed not to wind up either community. You’ll probably see Clinton pulled in, and a concerted effort to negotiate.
    On some current polls eg Comres, the DUP could hold the balance of power again in 2024 and they would demand removal of the Irish Sea border to support the Tories again.

    Whatever negotiations the Biden administration would pursue we know a border in Ireland would be a non starter for them
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,516
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    Not enough for America to give Ireland any vaccine

    https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-martin-vaccines-5384269-Mar2021/
    That would involve giving vaccine to the EU as a whole though. Ireland would just be left with a pro-rata share, the Chinese and Russian-loving EU bagging the rest.

    "We'd love to help Ireland, but..."
    I think the Irish were hoping for a quiet deal and a nice little million dose shipment to Cork harbour

    But yes, Ireland's EU membership would have complicated any offer from the USA. An EU downside for Dublin....
    Surely, Ireland hasn't lost all that expertise of quietly getting a shipment in - by little boat via Libya?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,967
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "French newspapers all turn on Macron over AstraZeneca vaccine blunder: 'F*** YOU!'
    FRENCH newspapers have turned on Emmanuel Macron, branding his Government's decision to put millions of people in Paris and parts of northern France into a fresh lockdown an "admission of failure"."

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1412493/France-news-Emmanuel-Macron-Paris-lockdown-latest-AstraZeneca-vaccine-vn

    Shame we're not still in the EU. I'm sure by now the good folk of Europe would be clamouring for Boris to step in and take command. That may or may not be a good thing, but would still do wonders for British prestige. I always knew that Britain's time as the most venerated country in Europe would come. It's a pity impetuous fools like Farage had to come along with their abysmal timing.
    On simple humanitarian grounds, ensuring Boris does not take command of Europe is a very good rationale for Brexit.

    Let's be honest. Boris has really lucked out. Again.

    Whoever realised the importance of vaccines in the UK Government last Summer, we can be damn sure it wasn't Boris.

    Boris was already beyond-lucky with his choice of opponents -- Red Ken, Theresa and Jeremy. And now he is facing a fading Merkel and a farcical Macron in the Vaccine Wars.
    Wrong. Read this interview with Kate Bingham. It WAS Boris who chose her, because he and Hancock realised vaccines were the way out


    "When the call from Downing Street came, it could not have been clearer. ‘We need you to stop people from dying,’ Boris Johnson told Kate Bingham, as he asked her to lead the Government’s search for a Covid-19 vaccine.

    "It was early May last year, just weeks after the Prime Minister had experienced, first-hand, the full horror of coronavirus. ‘He appreciated that vaccines might not be perfect from day one,’ she recalls. ‘But he said, “We need to start saving lives and I need you to help.”’"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/work/kate-bingham-exclusive-interview-eu-leaders-undermining-vaccine/
    Yeah, right.

    "We need you to stop people from dying,’ Boris Johnson told Kate Bingham, as he asked her to lead the Government’s search for a Covid-19 vaccine."

    Not I. We.

    Someone told Boris in terms sufficiently clear that Boris could understand. Probably Patrick Vallance who is an academic, but also had a spell at GSK & knows how big pharma works.

    But, Boris is astute enough to know how to take the credit, I grant him that.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    tlg86 said:

    My dad tells me she was on the Daily Politics and refused to condemn the rioters in Bristol last night.
    Sigh. The problem Starmer has is that getting rid of her wont win any Tory votes in itself but it very well may cost some votes on his far left.

    He should probably withdraw the whip in any case because not doing so with further strengthen existing Tory votes and make it even harder to win them over.
    I find this kind of “gotcha - your MP said something terrible” politics repellent. I doubt I agree with this MP on anything very much, but can’t we all argue against her point rather than argue she ought to go on the naughty step forever?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,344

    tlg86 said:

    My dad tells me she was on the Daily Politics and refused to condemn the rioters in Bristol last night.
    Sigh. The problem Starmer has is that getting rid of her wont win any Tory votes in itself but it very well may cost some votes on his far left.

    He should probably withdraw the whip in any case because not doing so with further strengthen existing Tory votes and make it even harder to win them over.
    I find this kind of “gotcha - your MP said something terrible” politics repellent. I doubt I agree with this MP on anything very much, but can’t we all argue against her point rather than argue she ought to go on the naughty step forever?
    Agree, as long as she didn't condemn pineapple-pizza eaters.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,516

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    Not enough for America to give Ireland any vaccine

    https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-martin-vaccines-5384269-Mar2021/
    That would involve giving vaccine to the EU as a whole though. Ireland would just be left with a pro-rata share, the Chinese and Russian-loving EU bagging the rest.

    "We'd love to help Ireland, but..."
    This doesn't make sense because Malta etc have procured their own vaccines and have not been required to pro-rata share them.
    But wasn't that before the EU shit-storm on vaccines went down?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,571

    tlg86 said:

    My dad tells me she was on the Daily Politics and refused to condemn the rioters in Bristol last night.
    Sigh. The problem Starmer has is that getting rid of her wont win any Tory votes in itself but it very well may cost some votes on his far left.

    He should probably withdraw the whip in any case because not doing so with further strengthen existing Tory votes and make it even harder to win them over.
    I find this kind of “gotcha - your MP said something terrible” politics repellent. I doubt I agree with this MP on anything very much, but can’t we all argue against her point rather than argue she ought to go on the naughty step forever?
    Her point feeds into the narrative that Labour is soft on law and order. From a marketing perspective it's terrible and if she worked for a normal company she'd probably be sacked for making such a stupid comment on national TV.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    I don’t think you understand what the “special relationship” refers to....
    Regardless, we are clearly not the closest ally of Biden's US, if Boris tried to move the hard border with the EU from the Irish Sea to Ireland to appease the DUP, then Biden would clearly side with Ireland over us
    Firstly, any PM with a majority of 80 who still feels the need to “appease” the clowns in the DUP is an idiot. Have you lot forgotten what the DUP is? It isn’t the UUP or anything like it.

    Secondly, when the NI Protocol issues come to a head, the US President will be guided by State and will make careful statements designed not to wind up either community. You’ll probably see Clinton pulled in, and a concerted effort to negotiate.
    On some current polls eg Comres, the DUP could hold the balance of power again in 2024 and they would demand removal of the Irish Sea border to support the Tories again.

    Whatever negotiations the Biden administration would pursue we know a border in Ireland would be a non starter for them
    You want to suck up to the idiots in the DUP now because you might need to rely on their bonkers votes in the future, and by extension you would be willing to hold the government of the U.K. to ransom to them simply to cling on to power?

    Yeah, this is my issue with politicians...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,516

    tlg86 said:

    My dad tells me she was on the Daily Politics and refused to condemn the rioters in Bristol last night.
    Sigh. The problem Starmer has is that getting rid of her wont win any Tory votes in itself but it very well may cost some votes on his far left.

    He should probably withdraw the whip in any case because not doing so with further strengthen existing Tory votes and make it even harder to win them over.
    I mean, what is the point in Starmer wrapping himself in the fleg if his lot still look like they don't give a shit about gaining power?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,538

    Refused to condemn violence and rioting. Fortunately her views don't have proportional representation in Government :wink:

    https://twitter.com/addicted2newz/status/1373982755504144385
    That starts off reasonable if predictably lefty, but by the third attempt to get a condemnation out of her, she sounds like Corbyn refusing to condemn IRA violence

    A terrible look for Starmer. He will have to do something

    What is wrong with these people? She could have said "violence against police is bad, and I condemn it, but violence by police, which this bill will encourage, is equally bad" - thus making the exact same point but not appearing like a deranged Marxist

    I blame student politics (she is very young), where you can get away with insane statements like this, so she probably believes what she says is normal and OK
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    tlg86 said:

    My dad tells me she was on the Daily Politics and refused to condemn the rioters in Bristol last night.
    Sigh. The problem Starmer has is that getting rid of her wont win any Tory votes in itself but it very well may cost some votes on his far left.

    He should probably withdraw the whip in any case because not doing so with further strengthen existing Tory votes and make it even harder to win them over.
    I find this kind of “gotcha - your MP said something terrible” politics repellent. I doubt I agree with this MP on anything very much, but can’t we all argue against her point rather than argue she ought to go on the naughty step forever?
    Her point feeds into the narrative that Labour is soft on law and order. From a marketing perspective it's terrible and if she worked for a normal company she'd probably be sacked for making such a stupid comment on national TV.
    Oh I get the reality of it, I just dislike it. But I wish people wouldn’t pretend she in any way reflects the Labour leadership on this, or any future Labour Government formed with MPs elected under Starmer. It’s just childish. We should be more grown up.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,344
    Now now, we can't piss off the Europeans too much. They are holding our vaccines hostage.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,718

    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.
    Indeed snow highly unlikely for 95% of the population. Perhaps some on the very high ground where almost nobody lives.

    The Easter snow thing is a myth, by the way.
    No its not.
    Snow is marginally more common in almost every region of the UK in December than in March as a whole, and significantly more common in December than in late March and April (when Easter falls). Snow at both Easter and Christmas is rare (most UK snowfall is in January and February) but it is somewhat rarer at Easter than at Christmas.

    The adage is a canard.

    https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&FMM=12&LMM=12&FYY=2000&LYY=2021&LANG=en&R=0&LEVEL=162&MOD=MOA&ART=SNT&OFFSET=08&NOREGION=0
    I've seen it from many professionals at the Met - are they all wrong? As in actual recorded snow on Dec 25th and the day that easter falls?

    Happy to accept its wrong but would like the specific evidence...
    It's wrong. The data on snowfall by month is in the public domain.
    Which month is Easter?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,633
    edited March 22
    Leon said:

    Refused to condemn violence and rioting. Fortunately her views don't have proportional representation in Government :wink:

    https://twitter.com/addicted2newz/status/1373982755504144385
    That starts off reasonable if predictably lefty, but by the third attempt to get a condemnation out of her, she sounds like Corbyn refusing to condemn IRA violence

    A terrible look for Starmer. He will have to do something

    What is wrong with these people? She could have said "violence against police is bad, and I condemn it, but violence by police, which this bill will encourage, is equally bad" - thus making the exact same point but not appearing like a deranged Marxist

    I blame student politics (she is very young), where you can get away with insane statements like this, so she probably believes what she says is normal and OK
    There's the other extreme of course

    https://twitter.com/tobyperkinsmp/status/1373971967494213641?s=20

    Appropriate use of the baton sounds like pure HYUFD filth
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,538

    tlg86 said:

    My dad tells me she was on the Daily Politics and refused to condemn the rioters in Bristol last night.
    Sigh. The problem Starmer has is that getting rid of her wont win any Tory votes in itself but it very well may cost some votes on his far left.

    He should probably withdraw the whip in any case because not doing so with further strengthen existing Tory votes and make it even harder to win them over.
    I mean, what is the point in Starmer wrapping himself in the fleg if his lot still look like they don't give a shit about gaining power?
    They don't give a shit about gaining power. As long as they have MPs like this, they are fucked
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,168
    edited March 22
    tlg86 said:

    My dad tells me she was on the Daily Politics and refused to condemn the rioters in Bristol last night.
    Labour were behind the Tories by 3,600,000 votes in 2019. i don't think this lady has been on the course on how to get rather more than 2,000,000 Tories to switch to Labour.

    Lucky general Boris continues on course by watching his opponents self destruct. At the moment the list is long: Sturgeon, Labour, Remain, EU, anti vaxers, lefty protesters and on it goes.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 63,037
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
    Yes. Again, I'm on your side on this (nominally).

    My point is that there are clearly quite a lot of scenarios where the system doesn't work as it should, and denying that is pointless and makes you (and, by extension, me) sound dumb.
    Absolutely, no system is perfect. I never said it was.

    Of course there are issues, and when there are having the option to 'kick the bastards out' is important. Life isn't perfect, nothing in life is, so don't take it as me saying the system works perfectly - it works well enough.
    Kicking the bastards out isn't a safety valve for when there are issues - it's a necessary component of a well-functioning system. Indeed, the main problem identified with FPTP is how difficult it can be to get rid of some very bad candidates - albeit, it's unclear which other systems would do better (list-based systems in particular are notorious).

    Take me, for instance. I'm a Tory voter in a constituency with a fairly safe, but moronic, MP, whom I don't like - he was a bit of a No Deal diehard for most of 2019 (for a pro-Remain constituency) and is generally considered to do poorly on local issues. Tory candidates are generally quite difficult to deselect, so how do I get rid of him without replacing him with someone worse?
    There's no such thing as a safe seat in the long term.

    From Labour's heartlands in Scotland, to the red wall, to Tory since the 19th Century Canterbury, the past eleven years should have shown that.

    If a seat doesn't change hands it just means a plurality of voters in the election chose the same option again. They retain the right to change their mind next time.
    At least 2/3 of seats have been won by the same party UK wide as the election before though, even in 1997, 2010 or 2019.

    If you live in a safe seat, party activists will put out one election address there and then shift across to the nearest marginal to do the rest of their leafletting and canvassing,

    If we had PR those 2/3 would see more campaigning at election time to win seats which would be available on the regional top up list even if the constituency was unlikely to change hands
    That's why I said in the long term.

    The 1/3 that see more campaigning changes from one election to the next too.

    If the result in an area is a foregone conclusion then that's just because the voters there have not changed their mind. I'm not expecting the Tories to be competitive in Walton, but constituencies near it just down the East Lancs road or along the M62 or M6 that were safe red are now blue. Times change.
    Yes but it will almost always be only those 1/3 which see a change of winner.

    Canterbury for example only change because of social change and an influx of students, the Red Wall because of Brexit and even then in 2017 and 2019 most other seats did not change hands.
    The red wall did not only change hands because of Brexit, its swung blue above national swing for a decade now. Brexit was the final tipping point but its a story that's been building for a decade now, even pre-Brexit.

    Seats only don't change hands because the voters haven't changed their minds (yet).
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,202
    tlg86 said:

    My dad tells me she was on the Daily Politics and refused to condemn the rioters in Bristol last night.
    Is the Daily Politics still a thing?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,538

    Leon said:

    Refused to condemn violence and rioting. Fortunately her views don't have proportional representation in Government :wink:

    https://twitter.com/addicted2newz/status/1373982755504144385
    That starts off reasonable if predictably lefty, but by the third attempt to get a condemnation out of her, she sounds like Corbyn refusing to condemn IRA violence

    A terrible look for Starmer. He will have to do something

    What is wrong with these people? She could have said "violence against police is bad, and I condemn it, but violence by police, which this bill will encourage, is equally bad" - thus making the exact same point but not appearing like a deranged Marxist

    I blame student politics (she is very young), where you can get away with insane statements like this, so she probably believes what she says is normal and OK
    There's the other extreme of course

    https://twitter.com/tobyperkinsmp/status/1373971967494213641?s=20

    Appropriate use of the baton sounds like pure HYUFD filth
    Notably, the Labour MP for Chesterfield. Red Wall. Knows his voters
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,202
    Floater said:
    Even Nottinghamshire has its village idiots.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,417
    felix said:

    Chameleon said:

    Labour going forwards in London and Scotland, now the Red Wall must be the focus

    Is this where I point out that in 2019 Lab won London 48% to 32%, so that poll represents a 0.5% Lab->Con swing (i.e. no change)?

    In 2017 Lab won 55% to 32%.
    The rest of us just laughed when we saw the post but you are quite right. In addition the LDs being well down could mean the Tories would gain a couple of London seats on that poll.
    It is hard to make comparisons though. We could be 3 years from the next election.
    3 years prior to the last election was only 6 months before the one before that!
  • Two AV/voting systems threads in the space of 24 hours, Mike you spoil us.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,507

    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.
    Indeed snow highly unlikely for 95% of the population. Perhaps some on the very high ground where almost nobody lives.

    The Easter snow thing is a myth, by the way.
    No its not.
    Snow is marginally more common in almost every region of the UK in December than in March as a whole, and significantly more common in December than in late March and April (when Easter falls). Snow at both Easter and Christmas is rare (most UK snowfall is in January and February) but it is somewhat rarer at Easter than at Christmas.

    The adage is a canard.

    https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&FMM=12&LMM=12&FYY=2000&LYY=2021&LANG=en&R=0&LEVEL=162&MOD=MOA&ART=SNT&OFFSET=08&NOREGION=0
    I've seen it from many professionals at the Met - are they all wrong? As in actual recorded snow on Dec 25th and the day that easter falls?

    Happy to accept its wrong but would like the specific evidence...
    It's wrong. The data on snowfall by month is in the public domain.
    Which month is Easter?
    Late March or April. Both periods have fewer snow days on average than December. We have already been through this.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    Leon said:

    Refused to condemn violence and rioting. Fortunately her views don't have proportional representation in Government :wink:

    https://twitter.com/addicted2newz/status/1373982755504144385
    That starts off reasonable if predictably lefty, but by the third attempt to get a condemnation out of her, she sounds like Corbyn refusing to condemn IRA violence

    A terrible look for Starmer. He will have to do something

    What is wrong with these people? She could have said "violence against police is bad, and I condemn it, but violence by police, which this bill will encourage, is equally bad" - thus making the exact same point but not appearing like a deranged Marxist

    I blame student politics (she is very young), where you can get away with insane statements like this, so she probably believes what she says is normal and OK
    Because the thickies can't hide what they truly think.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,322

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    I don’t think you understand what the “special relationship” refers to....
    Regardless, we are clearly not the closest ally of Biden's US, if Boris tried to move the hard border with the EU from the Irish Sea to Ireland to appease the DUP, then Biden would clearly side with Ireland over us
    Firstly, any PM with a majority of 80 who still feels the need to “appease” the clowns in the DUP is an idiot. Have you lot forgotten what the DUP is? It isn’t the UUP or anything like it.

    Secondly, when the NI Protocol issues come to a head, the US President will be guided by State and will make careful statements designed not to wind up either community. You’ll probably see Clinton pulled in, and a concerted effort to negotiate.
    On some current polls eg Comres, the DUP could hold the balance of power again in 2024 and they would demand removal of the Irish Sea border to support the Tories again.

    Whatever negotiations the Biden administration would pursue we know a border in Ireland would be a non starter for them
    You want to suck up to the idiots in the DUP now because you might need to rely on their bonkers votes in the future, and by extension you would be willing to hold the government of the U.K. to ransom to them simply to cling on to power?

    Yeah, this is my issue with politicians...
    The latest Comres is Tories 39% and Labour 37% so in 2024 on that result it would be a hung parliament again and the Tories would have to suck up to the DUP to stay in power even if that meant moving the hard border to Ireland rather than the Irish Sea, otherwise it would be a PM Starmer and closer regulatory alignment with the EU which would largely remove the Irish Sea border anyway
    https://2sjjwunnql41ia7ki31qqub1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/MPP_Tables_20210316_03_Private.xlsx
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,267
    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    My dad tells me she was on the Daily Politics and refused to condemn the rioters in Bristol last night.
    Is the Daily Politics still a thing?
    It's called something else, but essentially the same programme.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,322

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
    Yes. Again, I'm on your side on this (nominally).

    My point is that there are clearly quite a lot of scenarios where the system doesn't work as it should, and denying that is pointless and makes you (and, by extension, me) sound dumb.
    Absolutely, no system is perfect. I never said it was.

    Of course there are issues, and when there are having the option to 'kick the bastards out' is important. Life isn't perfect, nothing in life is, so don't take it as me saying the system works perfectly - it works well enough.
    Kicking the bastards out isn't a safety valve for when there are issues - it's a necessary component of a well-functioning system. Indeed, the main problem identified with FPTP is how difficult it can be to get rid of some very bad candidates - albeit, it's unclear which other systems would do better (list-based systems in particular are notorious).

    Take me, for instance. I'm a Tory voter in a constituency with a fairly safe, but moronic, MP, whom I don't like - he was a bit of a No Deal diehard for most of 2019 (for a pro-Remain constituency) and is generally considered to do poorly on local issues. Tory candidates are generally quite difficult to deselect, so how do I get rid of him without replacing him with someone worse?
    There's no such thing as a safe seat in the long term.

    From Labour's heartlands in Scotland, to the red wall, to Tory since the 19th Century Canterbury, the past eleven years should have shown that.

    If a seat doesn't change hands it just means a plurality of voters in the election chose the same option again. They retain the right to change their mind next time.
    At least 2/3 of seats have been won by the same party UK wide as the election before though, even in 1997, 2010 or 2019.

    If you live in a safe seat, party activists will put out one election address there and then shift across to the nearest marginal to do the rest of their leafletting and canvassing,

    If we had PR those 2/3 would see more campaigning at election time to win seats which would be available on the regional top up list even if the constituency was unlikely to change hands
    That's why I said in the long term.

    The 1/3 that see more campaigning changes from one election to the next too.

    If the result in an area is a foregone conclusion then that's just because the voters there have not changed their mind. I'm not expecting the Tories to be competitive in Walton, but constituencies near it just down the East Lancs road or along the M62 or M6 that were safe red are now blue. Times change.
    Yes but it will almost always be only those 1/3 which see a change of winner.

    Canterbury for example only change because of social change and an influx of students, the Red Wall because of Brexit and even then in 2017 and 2019 most other seats did not change hands.
    The red wall did not only change hands because of Brexit, its swung blue above national swing for a decade now. Brexit was the final tipping point but its a story that's been building for a decade now, even pre-Brexit.

    Seats only don't change hands because the voters haven't changed their minds (yet).
    The Tories may have seen a bigger swing in RedWall seats in recent years but even in 2019 they did not gain all RedWall seats and nationally most seats in 2019 were won by the same party as in 2017
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    I don’t think you understand what the “special relationship” refers to....
    Regardless, we are clearly not the closest ally of Biden's US, if Boris tried to move the hard border with the EU from the Irish Sea to Ireland to appease the DUP, then Biden would clearly side with Ireland over us
    Firstly, any PM with a majority of 80 who still feels the need to “appease” the clowns in the DUP is an idiot. Have you lot forgotten what the DUP is? It isn’t the UUP or anything like it.

    Secondly, when the NI Protocol issues come to a head, the US President will be guided by State and will make careful statements designed not to wind up either community. You’ll probably see Clinton pulled in, and a concerted effort to negotiate.
    On some current polls eg Comres, the DUP could hold the balance of power again in 2024 and they would demand removal of the Irish Sea border to support the Tories again.

    Whatever negotiations the Biden administration would pursue we know a border in Ireland would be a non starter for them
    You want to suck up to the idiots in the DUP now because you might need to rely on their bonkers votes in the future, and by extension you would be willing to hold the government of the U.K. to ransom to them simply to cling on to power?

    Yeah, this is my issue with politicians...
    The latest Comres is Tories 39% and Labour 37% so in 2024 on that result it would be a hung parliament again and the Tories would have to suck up to the DUP to stay in power even if that meant moving the hard border to Ireland rather than the Irish Sea, otherwise it would be a PM Starmer and closer regulatory alignment with the EU which would largely remove the Irish Sea border anyway
    https://2sjjwunnql41ia7ki31qqub1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/MPP_Tables_20210316_03_Private.xlsx
    So that’s a yes. You’ll suck up to anyone just to cling to power. I saw a poster once about that. Someone was in someone else’s pocket.

    Have you considered the alternative of actually campaigning to win?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    As an aside, is Bad Al ever not asked for his view on any matter at the moment? He seems to be on literally everything.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,920
    In SNP and Green news as discussed earlier on

    https://twitter.com/cstross/status/1374003786289676293

    Which is merely them formalising what was previously informal.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,718
    edited March 22

    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.
    Indeed snow highly unlikely for 95% of the population. Perhaps some on the very high ground where almost nobody lives.

    The Easter snow thing is a myth, by the way.
    No its not.
    Snow is marginally more common in almost every region of the UK in December than in March as a whole, and significantly more common in December than in late March and April (when Easter falls). Snow at both Easter and Christmas is rare (most UK snowfall is in January and February) but it is somewhat rarer at Easter than at Christmas.

    The adage is a canard.

    https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&FMM=12&LMM=12&FYY=2000&LYY=2021&LANG=en&R=0&LEVEL=162&MOD=MOA&ART=SNT&OFFSET=08&NOREGION=0
    I've seen it from many professionals at the Met - are they all wrong? As in actual recorded snow on Dec 25th and the day that easter falls?

    Happy to accept its wrong but would like the specific evidence...
    It's wrong. The data on snowfall by month is in the public domain.
    Which month is Easter?
    Late March or April. Both periods have fewer snow days on average than December. We have already been through this.
    March has more snow days than December.

    Do you perhaps have a list of White Easters so that we can settle the question directly?

    I can find records of White Christmases, but not for the other.

    Monthly averages aren't good enough.

    Edit: For the record, "we have already been through this" is one of the most annoying things. If you can't provide a link or a succinct proof then I'm not going to just bow before the collective wisdom of the three people online at the time you think it was decided.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,168

    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.
    Indeed snow highly unlikely for 95% of the population. Perhaps some on the very high ground where almost nobody lives.

    The Easter snow thing is a myth, by the way.
    No its not.
    Snow is marginally more common in almost every region of the UK in December than in March as a whole, and significantly more common in December than in late March and April (when Easter falls). Snow at both Easter and Christmas is rare (most UK snowfall is in January and February) but it is somewhat rarer at Easter than at Christmas.

    The adage is a canard.

    https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&FMM=12&LMM=12&FYY=2000&LYY=2021&LANG=en&R=0&LEVEL=162&MOD=MOA&ART=SNT&OFFSET=08&NOREGION=0
    I've seen it from many professionals at the Met - are they all wrong? As in actual recorded snow on Dec 25th and the day that easter falls?

    Happy to accept its wrong but would like the specific evidence...
    It's wrong. The data on snowfall by month is in the public domain.
    Which month is Easter?
    Easter can fall from 22 March to 25 April (blame the moon for this) so it isn't much use as a marker point for snow.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,159
    eek said:

    In SNP and Green news as discussed earlier on

    https://twitter.com/cstross/status/1374003786289676293

    Which is merely them formalising what was previously informal.

    Where do people who hate Nicola and still want independence go now though? This feels like an error on the face of it as it will result in peoppe staying home.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,267
    edited March 22
    NEW THREAD
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,322

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465

    Under Biden the Special Relationship is clearly with Ireland, not us
    I don’t think you understand what the “special relationship” refers to....
    Regardless, we are clearly not the closest ally of Biden's US, if Boris tried to move the hard border with the EU from the Irish Sea to Ireland to appease the DUP, then Biden would clearly side with Ireland over us
    Firstly, any PM with a majority of 80 who still feels the need to “appease” the clowns in the DUP is an idiot. Have you lot forgotten what the DUP is? It isn’t the UUP or anything like it.

    Secondly, when the NI Protocol issues come to a head, the US President will be guided by State and will make careful statements designed not to wind up either community. You’ll probably see Clinton pulled in, and a concerted effort to negotiate.
    On some current polls eg Comres, the DUP could hold the balance of power again in 2024 and they would demand removal of the Irish Sea border to support the Tories again.

    Whatever negotiations the Biden administration would pursue we know a border in Ireland would be a non starter for them
    You want to suck up to the idiots in the DUP now because you might need to rely on their bonkers votes in the future, and by extension you would be willing to hold the government of the U.K. to ransom to them simply to cling on to power?

    Yeah, this is my issue with politicians...
    The latest Comres is Tories 39% and Labour 37% so in 2024 on that result it would be a hung parliament again and the Tories would have to suck up to the DUP to stay in power even if that meant moving the hard border to Ireland rather than the Irish Sea, otherwise it would be a PM Starmer and closer regulatory alignment with the EU which would largely remove the Irish Sea border anyway
    https://2sjjwunnql41ia7ki31qqub1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/MPP_Tables_20210316_03_Private.xlsx
    So that’s a yes. You’ll suck up to anyone just to cling to power. I saw a poster once about that. Someone was in someone else’s pocket.

    Have you considered the alternative of actually campaigning to win?
    You can campaign to win but if you do not win outright but do not lose outright either you have to do deals to stay in power eg 2010 and 2017
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    It was all fault of out of towners....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYKWP4cHPMg
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Leon said:

    Refused to condemn violence and rioting. Fortunately her views don't have proportional representation in Government :wink:

    https://twitter.com/addicted2newz/status/1373982755504144385
    That starts off reasonable if predictably lefty, but by the third attempt to get a condemnation out of her, she sounds like Corbyn refusing to condemn IRA violence

    A terrible look for Starmer. He will have to do something

    What is wrong with these people? She could have said "violence against police is bad, and I condemn it, but violence by police, which this bill will encourage, is equally bad" - thus making the exact same point but not appearing like a deranged Marxist

    I blame student politics (she is very young), where you can get away with insane statements like this, so she probably believes what she says is normal and OK
    For every Pidcock you lose you gain a Sultana and a Whittome. They might get lucky and lose Webbe & Begum depending on the outcome of the court cases. When you listen to these folk open their mouths and pollute twitter with their sixth form socialist ramblings you can almost forgive Starmer for rigging Hartlepool to keep them out.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,557
    edited March 22
    RobD said:

    TimT said:

    Don't know if this has been reported here yet - AZN US trial data in.
    - 80% effective against symptomatic COVID
    - 100% effective against hospitalization and severe COVID
    - no link to blood clots

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/03/22/astrazeneca-vaccine-100-effective-in-preventing-severe-disease-and-hospitalizations-us-trials-show/?utm_campaign=forbes&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Gordie&sh=6c2c36394364

    Is there an expected ETA on approval? It'll help the US roll-out no end.
    Not expected before May, by which time the US will have over 600M doses from other sources, so AZN probably will not be used in the US at all. BUT ... it should help with AZN's image problems in the RoW following the EU shenanigans.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/business/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine.html
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    Leon said:
    To be fair he has to say something a bit more conciliatory than the truth which is probably “we expect the shit show over the channel to increase our infection rates a bit but we’ve got at least one jab into all the most vulnerable so it won’t be too bad”.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,718
    algarkirk said:

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

    Snow is forecast for Friday apparently
    Maybe on the top of Snowdon.
    BBC forecast was cold weather towards the end of the week with risk of snow, but they did not mention Snowdon
    Mentioned even dartmoor (above 200m). Snow at Easter is more common than at Christmas.
    Indeed snow highly unlikely for 95% of the population. Perhaps some on the very high ground where almost nobody lives.

    The Easter snow thing is a myth, by the way.
    No its not.
    Snow is marginally more common in almost every region of the UK in December than in March as a whole, and significantly more common in December than in late March and April (when Easter falls). Snow at both Easter and Christmas is rare (most UK snowfall is in January and February) but it is somewhat rarer at Easter than at Christmas.

    The adage is a canard.

    https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&FMM=12&LMM=12&FYY=2000&LYY=2021&LANG=en&R=0&LEVEL=162&MOD=MOA&ART=SNT&OFFSET=08&NOREGION=0
    I've seen it from many professionals at the Met - are they all wrong? As in actual recorded snow on Dec 25th and the day that easter falls?

    Happy to accept its wrong but would like the specific evidence...
    It's wrong. The data on snowfall by month is in the public domain.
    Which month is Easter?
    Easter can fall from 22 March to 25 April (blame the moon for this) so it isn't much use as a marker point for snow.
    That certainly makes it a bit more tricky. A comparison of equinox and solstice would be a bit easier and make a similar point.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,140

    Refused to condemn violence and rioting. Fortunately her views don't have proportional representation in Government :wink:

    https://twitter.com/addicted2newz/status/1373982755504144385
    Actually we need an investigation actually into what went on and I'm actually not going to start condemning protestors and actually they are the real victims here because actually policemen's skulls are so think that they probably hurt themselves when they started kicking the copper's head in actually.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,633
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    In SNP and Green news as discussed earlier on

    https://twitter.com/cstross/status/1374003786289676293

    Which is merely them formalising what was previously informal.

    Where do people who hate Nicola and still want independence go now though? This feels like an error on the face of it as it will result in peoppe staying home.
    On the face of it you may be fixating a bit too much on people who 'hate' Nicola Sturgeon.

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1373927766505222145?s=20
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,140
    eek said:

    In SNP and Green news as discussed earlier on

    https://twitter.com/cstross/status/1374003786289676293

    Which is merely them formalising what was previously informal.

    Irrelevant. The Epping Forest Massiv has already spoken - unless the SNP beat their haul in the last election which was 2011 then they have failed, independence has failed and we can all enjoy our time as supplicants in the thousand year reich happy unionists under the leadership of Boris.
  • eek said:

    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.

    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20

    This is why the additional member system is a decent compromise. There is little point in small parties standing for constituencies - their support is too diffuse. But combine it all together into a top-up and they're all good.

    If young jobbie here thinks he's already lost to the SNP then so much for the comeback for non-indy parties. Rutherglen is the kind of seat where they used to weigh the Labour vote...
    Both the Greens and James Kelly know that the Greens will take more SNP votes than Labour party votes so he wants them to stand - while the Greens are very happy to let the SNP win the seat while they hoover up some additional seats.

    As I've commented a while back I know SNP voters who will be voting Green on the regional list simply because they know the SNP doesn't need that second vote.
    It's not quite as simple as that, because in many regions the SNP will already have achieved a lot of FPTP constituency seats which means that list votes for the SNP will be a lot less efficient in terms of number of votes needed to get a list seat than for other parties. In Scotland the independence/union divide dominates every other consideration, so for independence supporters, voting SNP/Green is a logical choice. Other independence supporting parties exist but it is very doubtful whether they will get to the threshold needed to get even one list MSP.

    Upthread HYFUD disagrees, which make me feel I'm on the right track.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,322

    eek said:

    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.

    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20

    This is why the additional member system is a decent compromise. There is little point in small parties standing for constituencies - their support is too diffuse. But combine it all together into a top-up and they're all good.

    If young jobbie here thinks he's already lost to the SNP then so much for the comeback for non-indy parties. Rutherglen is the kind of seat where they used to weigh the Labour vote...
    Both the Greens and James Kelly know that the Greens will take more SNP votes than Labour party votes so he wants them to stand - while the Greens are very happy to let the SNP win the seat while they hoover up some additional seats.

    As I've commented a while back I know SNP voters who will be voting Green on the regional list simply because they know the SNP doesn't need that second vote.
    It's not quite as simple as that, because in many regions the SNP will already have achieved a lot of FPTP constituency seats which means that list votes for the SNP will be a lot less efficient in terms of number of votes needed to get a list seat than for other parties. In Scotland the independence/union divide dominates every other consideration, so for independence supporters, voting SNP/Green is a logical choice. Other independence supporting parties exist but it is very doubtful whether they will get to the threshold needed to get even one list MSP.

    Upthread HYFUD disagrees, which make me feel I'm on the right track.
    If there is no absolute SNP majority in May as in 2021, there is zero chance of a legal indyref2 being granted by the UK government
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,571
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.

    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20

    This is why the additional member system is a decent compromise. There is little point in small parties standing for constituencies - their support is too diffuse. But combine it all together into a top-up and they're all good.

    If young jobbie here thinks he's already lost to the SNP then so much for the comeback for non-indy parties. Rutherglen is the kind of seat where they used to weigh the Labour vote...
    Both the Greens and James Kelly know that the Greens will take more SNP votes than Labour party votes so he wants them to stand - while the Greens are very happy to let the SNP win the seat while they hoover up some additional seats.

    As I've commented a while back I know SNP voters who will be voting Green on the regional list simply because they know the SNP doesn't need that second vote.
    It's not quite as simple as that, because in many regions the SNP will already have achieved a lot of FPTP constituency seats which means that list votes for the SNP will be a lot less efficient in terms of number of votes needed to get a list seat than for other parties. In Scotland the independence/union divide dominates every other consideration, so for independence supporters, voting SNP/Green is a logical choice. Other independence supporting parties exist but it is very doubtful whether they will get to the threshold needed to get even one list MSP.

    Upthread HYFUD disagrees, which make me feel I'm on the right track.
    If there is no absolute SNP majority in May as in 2021, there is zero chance of a legal indyref2 being granted by the UK government
    I thought there was zero chance anyway?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,278

    kinabalu said:

    Floater said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Breaking news:

    Welsh supermarket shoppers can now buy Barbara Cartland novels.

    A nation rejoices .... or not
    Heard Drakeford speaking the other day. Very impressed with his nuanced and intelligent use of language.
    Drakeford is universally disliked. He closed the pubs (as a teetotaller himself) whilst Johnson (and the Conservatives) invented, procured and vaccinated the population. Very much the view on the ground. May is going to see Tories with most seats.
    Another example of "everyone thinks like my circle", not supported by the polls. Are you putting your money on it? You can get good odds!
    Indeed I have. I still expect a Labour AM to be FM in the next Senedd.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,323
    eek said:

    In SNP and Green news as discussed earlier on

    https://twitter.com/cstross/status/1374003786289676293

    Which is merely them formalising what was previously informal.

    This is presumably to discourage voting for other indy parties on the regional list. Given the opposition to the GRA and hate crime bill both supported, this could rebound on them.
  • MangoMango Posts: 953

    Charles said:

    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.

    I don’t believe there is a democratic cost. After all this is a community selecting a representative not trying to reflect the percentage score someone got in an opinion poll
    That would be fine if MPs could act as a representative of their community instead of being lobby fodder and rosette-wearing donkeys.

    Given what we've seen of the reality of the strength of the party system, with Johnson's deselection of internal opponents, then we would be best placed to either weaken the party system (if possible) or choose a different voting system better suited to strong centralised parties.

    One advantage of STV is that it gives a better chance to internal party dissidents excised by their leadership, so it not only better represents the party-dominant nature of our democracy, but also acts to weaken it slightly.
    FPTP fuckwits will not engage on STV, because it is obviously superior. They will always try and strawman closed list PR or AV instead.
  • MangoMango Posts: 953

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    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
    Which is, in my view, a betrayal of your neighbours rights to select the representative that the community wants. I think it is disgraceful and have said so multiple tones before (usually when OGH gloats about how he is going to help elect lots of LibDem MPs by trading his sacred duty).
    Everybody votes tactically in a UK general election. The nature of the beast is that we all have to vote for parties we least hate rather who we actually want.

    To deny that is just dishonest.
    And negative campaigning goes hand in hand with that. Attack your single opponent rather than promote yourself. The 2017 general election was a beaut: about 40% of people voted against May, and 40% against Corbyn. Their actual support was pitifully less.
  • timpletimple Posts: 82
    Got to this post late, but feel very strongly about voting systems so I want to comment.

    STV is highly recommended by the electoral reform society and this country would be governed a lot better if we elected MPs via STV. Incentives in the system align with desired outcomes. The lucky Irish have STV and by all accounts the electors feel quite happy with it. It was also invented by an Englishman so we have a world beating English invention to promote!

    But I disagree that supplementary vote is worse than FPTP. It at least allows you to express who you really want to represent you even if they have no chance. Your second vote is then your FPTP vote (least worst option from those you think have a chance).

    With that I'll now read the comments to see if there is anything there to change my mind!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,202
    edited March 27
    ..
This discussion has been closed.