Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Does any other Westminster system parliament have a fixed term?
Every council and mayoral authority has fixed terms, as do the US President, Congress and House. There is no reason why we can't legislate for the terms to be fixed, and be done with.
Yes there is - a majority government could always pass a one-line bill modelled on the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019. Councils and mayoral authorities aren't sovereign and the US isn't a Westminster system so you can't draw a parallel.
Histrionic, orchestrated nationalism. Europe has seen this before.
It’s like an SNP march through Edinburgh
Quite the fantasy, the latter simile, as there are no such things these days. Much larger and looser coalitions, which renders your comparison irrelevant.
Histrionic, orchestrated nationalism. Europe has seen this before.
It’s like an SNP march through Edinburgh
Pity they're aren't subtitles.
Re, the references on PB to King Crimson a few days ago, I almost expected them to blast "21st Century Schizoid Man" through the tannoys as he walked on. Could've been written for Vlad.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
So is the higher rate in Scotland because we still wear masks in public buildings, etc and still have regulations about social distancing etc or despite them? Is there any evidence that our remaining restrictions actually have any efficacy at all?
I genuinely don't know the answer to this. Throughout the pandemic there was far too much emphasis on bosiness and telling people what to do and not nearly enough attention on what actually worked. And we still don't seem to know.
Is it differential recording? Mr Johnson has basically given the nudge and wink to forget covid down south.
The R levels varyt a lot, too; at the moment the English areas tend to he higher in Malmesbury's tables, but that was certainly the other way round for some time before.
Yes, if you look at admissions etc it is clear that the problem hasn't gone away in England. I have several colleagues off with it again. Of course, ignoring reality isn't a great strategy in anything but the short term.
Admissions are up sharply in all English regions. The most rapid increase is NE and Yorks, up 52% week-on-week! Other regions are up by 21-26%. 2/5 https://t.co/gfykN5dI8u
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Bottom line is so long as lots of people want it a way will be found at some point, there is just argument over timing. It makes the 'delay and hope' approach from UK gov understandable if not my preference.
I see we are making future predictions about AI. I note, completely randomly, that the world of film and tv is currently suffering an acute shortage of translators
"...Netflix pays $13 per minute for translation of Korean audio into English subtitles, but only a fraction of that figure ends up directly in the pockets of translators...."
Is that per minute of screen time ? If so, no wonder the subtitles are absolute shite.
That's interesting - I have a second job running a one-man translation business (not subtitling) and I'm certainly seeing the trends described. Over the last couple of years, nearly all my work has shifted from straight translation to computer translation - the system does the first job and I edit it and am paid 30% less than I used to get for doing all the work, but am able to do it twice as quickly, so it's a good deal all round. The computer translation is astonishingly good most of the time, and it's always plausible and grammatical, so you look at a sentence and think "that sounds all right" but if you know the subject and check the original ("they can't have meant that!") you can find that the meaning has been reversed or a key phrase omitted.
Immodestly speaking, I'm good at understanding complex documents and spotting logical flaws in the translation, so I'm now paid a couple of thousand a month retainer in return for working fast when stuff comes through. But I can well imagine that someone who is just pumping out subtitles as fast as possible without necessarily following the overall theme will trip up as the computer won't do that either.
It's just an evening/weekend job for me to fit in alongside political work, but my cousin is a full-time professional (French/English) subtitler, and says he's never been in more demand.
I actually think this is an example of where AI is creating opportunity, rather than taking it away. Without the AI first pass, there are lots of things that don't need to be translated and so wouldn't be. Now if you can automatically get most of the way there and then pay somebody a small amount of money to do corrections, that opens opportunities that probably weren't viable or cost effective before.
Back in my student days I had a part-time job at a credit reference company fixing the output of computerised OCR systems that scanned the voter lists the councils provided. They were quite accurate even at the time (late 80s/early 90s) but would still make 'silly' errors which sometimes remind me of the current automatic translation software.
It was extremely tedious - but you could sit with your high-tech portable CD player and just mindlessly hammer away at it and earn a few easy quid.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Bottom line is so long as lots of people want it a way will be found at some point, there is just argument over timing. It makes the 'delay and hope' approach from UK gov understandable if not my preference.
Yes. There will be a 2nd vote. As there was in Canada. But the generation argument is valid and profound. You can’t call into question the very basis of a nation every few years.
Eurosceptics had to wait 40 years for their 2nd vote, Scot Nats will have to wait 15-20 years (as did Quebec Nats). 2030s
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Does any other Westminster system parliament have a fixed term?
That is a good question and a good point. Most I can think of that are very close in style to ours I don't think do (hence your point), but I assume that is because they are generally copies of our system, so I'm not sure that is particularly relevant. Lots of non Westminster style parliaments do (I would say most, but I don't know that, so not confident to say so)
The USA obviously does.
Is it mostly a question of culture and history though? I.e. Could Congress change it if it wanted to or is it in the Constitution?
The appointment of the US head of government is in the Constitution. If Congress wanted to replace the current president with anyone other than the current vice president, I believe they would have to first choose the intended new president as Speaker of the House of Representatives, then impeach and convict both the president and the vice president so close together that a new VP couldn't be chosen.
Oh sorry, no I meant the election timetable for the members of Congress themselves.
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Perhaps. Assumes the currency and EU problems are solvable, of course. Which they aren't. Nor are pensions, tax, etc either apparently.
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
Random web stuff. I like this comparison from a site that compares different things (e.g. a pre-1970 Big Mac with a Big Mac today). But this comparison is remarkable:
Fastest creature on earth, the peregrine falcon. In a stoop dive, almost as fast as an F1 car. Which is pretty remarkable, when you compare the size of the motors....
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
By which point we will likely have a Labour government and it will be their problem (assuming there is not a Labour FM by then rendering the issue redundant). There will certainly not be an indyref2 allowed while we have a UK Tory government
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
"Some of the Russian infantry vehicles and tanks are just lost, wandering around. They don’t have communications, they don’t know where they are," Mr. Kim said.
Some over sensitive Jew students complained about antisemite Lowkey at the NUS conference this month. They have a safe space for them.
It seems that the insensitivity to Jewish perspectives goes a little deeper than not giving in to snowflakes:
"It is understood that just days earlier, when Jewish students tried to register for the conference, they found that there was no option for kosher food, whereas all other dietary requirements, including vegan and Halal food, were catered for."
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
By which point we will likely have a Labour government and it will be there problem (assuming there is not a Labour FM by then rendering the issue redundant).
It will be every union supporters problem. They will just have the most vital role.
"Some of the Russian infantry vehicles and tanks are just lost, wandering around. They don’t have communications, they don’t know where they are," Mr. Kim said.
TBF, I recall a story from GW 2 where American and British units got somewhat spatially separated from where they were meant to be, by a fair number of miles. I think in one case a friendly fire incident of some scale resulted. Although that was in a desert...
Histrionic, orchestrated nationalism. Europe has seen this before.
It’s like an SNP march through Edinburgh
Pity they're aren't subtitles.
Re, the references on PB to King Crimson a few days ago, I almost expected them to blast "21st Century Schizoid Man" through the tannoys as he walked on. Could've been written for Vlad.
Just to ensure we don't go down solely Wordle rabbit holes, the other NYT word game is Queen Bee (like the Express' WordWheel). It hates British English words. Today, tannoy was not recognized as a word. Or yoyo (US spelling yo-yo).
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
By which point we will likely have a Labour government and it will be there problem (assuming there is not a Labour FM by then rendering the issue redundant).
It will be every union supporters problem. They will just have the most vital role.
If they allow it it will be their problem primarily to win it.
The Tories won't allow it, hence the problem does not arise for them
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
Are you competing with immigrants for social housing?
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Perhaps. Assumes the currency and EU problems are solvable, of course. Which they aren't. Nor are pensions, tax, etc either apparently.
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
That is probably what they do need. Defeat. The whiff of stagnancy and corruption is strong in Holyrood. No party should reign forever.
A good scenario for the SNP would be a narrow election defeat, then 5 years of incompetent Coalition/Unionist government in Holyrood. Then the Nats could point and say See?! - with a vigorous new leader they would then win a big majority, and a new mandate for an indyref. By that time - 15 years after 2014 - they could also argue: a new generation is here, Scotland has the right to ask once again
I don’t believe Westminster could or should resist in that situation. = Indyref2
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Does any other Westminster system parliament have a fixed term?
That is a good question and a good point. Most I can think of that are very close in style to ours I don't think do (hence your point), but I assume that is because they are generally copies of our system, so I'm not sure that is particularly relevant. Lots of non Westminster style parliaments do (I would say most, but I don't know that, so not confident to say so)
The USA obviously does.
Is it mostly a question of culture and history though? I.e. Could Congress change it if it wanted to or is it in the Constitution?
The appointment of the US head of government is in the Constitution. If Congress wanted to replace the current president with anyone other than the current vice president, I believe they would have to first choose the intended new president as Speaker of the House of Representatives, then impeach and convict both the president and the vice president so close together that a new VP couldn't be chosen.
Oh sorry, no I meant the election timetable for the members of Congress themselves.
Ah, I see, sorry. The House terms are set at 2 years by article 1 of the Constitution, and Senate terms at 6 years by the Seventeenth Amendment.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
Yep, and this is why the minimum income threshold topic is such a powerful weapon for the Tories. While the Guardian covers it through some 21 year old bringing over their American husband, it overwhelmingly affects arranged marriages from the subcontinent. This is why Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigration has fallen so much since May's time in the Home Office.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
Are you competing with immigrants for social housing?
No I am not. But a Polish immigrant would be, which apparently "the public" doesn't care about.
"Some of the Russian infantry vehicles and tanks are just lost, wandering around. They don’t have communications, they don’t know where they are," Mr. Kim said.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
Have you paused for a minute and considered that maybe, just maybe, you are not representative of the median voter's views on immigration?
These are not the numbers of a Government that will be re-elected.
Keep telling yourself that if it keeps you happy
The question is whether or not Labour can make a case that the economy would be better under them. I'm yet to see it. In many respects it feels like an open goal, yet Labour seem invisible on the economy.
This is polling from late last year, but only 26% of people have even heard of the shadow chancellor.
Labour need to say that, in the midst of all this horror, made worse by the lies and incompetence of the Tory government, they will make sure they look after the interests of ordinary people better than the Tories would (look at their corrupt money from Russia and parties while our grannies died to see that *of course* Labour will look after you better than that).
A couple of fairly neutral but exemplary policies to show the difference are all that is required. Historically, they've made a mess of that bit - but I have a sense that Starmer will be stronger at that part.
There's an interesting poll on one such examplary policy, though the subsample %s are odd (all larger than the overall figure)
Essentially I think the policy will be popular, since the perception is that the fuel companies are accidentally doing jolly well out of the price boom even though the cause is supply shortage. But I shouldn't think that more than 5% of voters know it's Labour policy at the moment. Starmer's job will be to shift forward from "I am a reliable, patriotic man" onto "and I've got these reasonable, yet mildly progressive, policies for you".
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
I defended the FTPA for a long time as to my mind most of the identified 'problems' were to do with political culture. But the end of the May period and early Johnson demonstrated it really was adding no value and that it could be worked around so simply made it pointless.
I think it comes down to a fundamental difference between a Parliamentary and a Presidential system.
A Parliamentary system requires a mechanism to allow for early elections, which once it exists means the timing of elections is more or less discretionary.
A Presidential system requires a definition of the line of succession, or a means of appointing a replacement without recourse to an election, and so can stick to a fixed timetable for elections.
One mega problem, and I am trying to remember the exact linguistic term in English, for when you never specifically say who or what is being talked about (or acted upon), but every native speaker implicitly knows what that is.
Getting AI to translate Cormac McCarthy would be a hell of a test then.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
Have you paused for a minute and considered that maybe, just maybe, you are not representative of the median voter's views on immigration?
Why is the median voter's views on immigration important. 49.99999% of the public will be of a more "extreme" position and 49.9999% of the public will be of a less "extreme" position.
So is the higher rate in Scotland because we still wear masks in public buildings, etc and still have regulations about social distancing etc or despite them? Is there any evidence that our remaining restrictions actually have any efficacy at all?
I genuinely don't know the answer to this. Throughout the pandemic there was far too much emphasis on bosiness and telling people what to do and not nearly enough attention on what actually worked. And we still don't seem to know.
Is it differential recording? Mr Johnson has basically given the nudge and wink to forget covid down south.
Could be. Since we stopped requiring PCRs and contented ourselves with LFTs I suspect the % of results actually officially recorded has plumeted to useless levels. It is possible that the level is even more useless in England than Scotland where LFTs are still generally available.
The figures are from the ONS survey, so nothing to do with differential recording.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
Are you competing with immigrants for social housing?
Are you voting for government who would build more ?
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
By which point we will likely have a Labour government and it will be there problem (assuming there is not a Labour FM by then rendering the issue redundant).
It will be every union supporters problem. They will just have the most vital role.
If they allow it it will be their problem primarily to win it.
The Tories won't allow it, hence the problem does not arise for them
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Does any other Westminster system parliament have a fixed term?
That is a good question and a good point. Most I can think of that are very close in style to ours I don't think do (hence your point), but I assume that is because they are generally copies of our system, so I'm not sure that is particularly relevant. Lots of non Westminster style parliaments do (I would say most, but I don't know that, so not confident to say so)
The USA obviously does.
Is it mostly a question of culture and history though? I.e. Could Congress change it if it wanted to or is it in the Constitution?
The appointment of the US head of government is in the Constitution. If Congress wanted to replace the current president with anyone other than the current vice president, I believe they would have to first choose the intended new president as Speaker of the House of Representatives, then impeach and convict both the president and the vice president so close together that a new VP couldn't be chosen.
Oh sorry, no I meant the election timetable for the members of Congress themselves.
Ah, I see, sorry. The House terms are set at 2 years by article 1 of the Constitution, and Senate terms at 6 years by the Seventeenth Amendment.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
Are you competing with immigrants for social housing?
Are you voting for government who would build more ?
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
The other example is Hong Kongers. Those on the left were cockahoop about how upset the nasty Brexiteer base of the Tories would be with the party. But they were actually supportive. Because the Hong Kongers are clearly highly educated, have strong work ethics, and really value Western democracy.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
Am I not a member of the public.
Sure. But a rich, dyspeptic public schooled sexagenarian fox hunter with a broken collarbone is probably not the go-to guy when YouGov need to talk to ‘Mondeo Man’. For the same reason they never seem to talk to me
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Elements of the British Right are simply obsessed with the FTPA because it had Dave and Nick's fingerprints on it. The fact that it takes power from parliament and gives it back to the executive - something they would normally claim to deplore - doesn't enter their collective imagination.
No, they're obsessed with FTPA because it was a disaster. Allowing a parliamentary majority to keep a government in office whilst defeating everything it did and denying it an election couldn't possibly be allowed to stand.
You and I have had this discussion before, and I respect your arguments on this, but I do disagree. True when we were in that position it was a shambles, but that was because it was new to MPs. However what it did give is power back to Parliament and engaged the population. All other Govt we have had have been elected dictatorships. Except for a few exceptions MPs have been powerless.
I would not want a position where a Govt could not fall, but I am happy for Parliament to tell a Govt it is wrong and to change or stand down for another group of MPs to take over the reigns if it can get the support of parliament.
This is of course the norm in many cases in the world.
But a position where a government could not fall is exactly what we had for an extended period in the 2017 parliament.
You see that is where we disagree. It was the first time that parliament actually had power. I grant you it was a shambles, but that is because they weren't used to it. This is the norm elsewhere. For once there was actually debate rather than just nodding through what the executive wants (an elected dictatorship). Argue, compromise, if necessary form a new Govt, etc, etc. New election is the last resort.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
Have you paused for a minute and considered that maybe, just maybe, you are not representative of the median voter's views on immigration?
Why is the median voter's views on immigration important. 49.99999% of the public will be of a more "extreme" position and 49.9999% of the public will be of a less "extreme" position.
Because the views of the median voter are actually pretty similar to the middle 20% in general. And polls have shown up to 75% of the electorate are concerned about migration at least sometimes, so you are clearly in a small minority.
"Some of the Russian infantry vehicles and tanks are just lost, wandering around. They don’t have communications, they don’t know where they are," Mr. Kim said.
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Elements of the British Right are simply obsessed with the FTPA because it had Dave and Nick's fingerprints on it. The fact that it takes power from parliament and gives it back to the executive - something they would normally claim to deplore - doesn't enter their collective imagination.
No, they're obsessed with FTPA because it was a disaster. Allowing a parliamentary majority to keep a government in office whilst defeating everything it did and denying it an election couldn't possibly be allowed to stand.
You and I have had this discussion before, and I respect your arguments on this, but I do disagree. True when we were in that position it was a shambles, but that was because it was new to MPs. However what it did give is power back to Parliament and engaged the population. All other Govt we have had have been elected dictatorships. Except for a few exceptions MPs have been powerless.
I would not want a position where a Govt could not fall, but I am happy for Parliament to tell a Govt it is wrong and to change or stand down for another group of MPs to take over the reigns if it can get the support of parliament.
This is of course the norm in many cases in the world.
But a position where a government could not fall is exactly what we had for an extended period in the 2017 parliament.
You see that is where we disagree. It was the first time that parliament actually had power. I grant you it was a shambles, but that is because they weren't used to it. This is the norm elsewhere. For once there was actually debate rather than just nodding through what the executive wants (an elected dictatorship). Argue, compromise, if necessary form a new Govt, etc, etc. New election is the last resort.
It's not an elected dictatorship. Parliament can no confidence the government at any time.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
The other example is Hong Kongers. Those on the left were cockahoop about how upset the nasty Brexiteer base of the Tories would be with the party. But they were actually supportive. Because the Hong Kongers are clearly highly educated, have strong work ethics, and really value Western democracy.
Moreover, voters get angry when they are told by Guardianistas that they are ‘racist’ to prefer some migrants over others. It’s not racist. It’s common sense - however uncomfortable. Some migrants integrate better than others, bring fewer problems, add more to the economy. We all have eyes to see this
There is still a lot of danger in this debate for Labour.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
The other example is Hong Kongers. Those on the left were cockahoop about how upset the nasty Brexiteer base of the Tories would be with the party. But they were actually supportive. Because the Hong Kongers are clearly highly educated, have strong work ethics, and really value Western democracy.
Some data on this from 2013, an interesting time: post-2008, but pre referendum:
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
Am I not a member of the public.
Surely no-one would be so disrespectful as to suggest that you were a mere "member of the public", sir?
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Elements of the British Right are simply obsessed with the FTPA because it had Dave and Nick's fingerprints on it. The fact that it takes power from parliament and gives it back to the executive - something they would normally claim to deplore - doesn't enter their collective imagination.
No, they're obsessed with FTPA because it was a disaster. Allowing a parliamentary majority to keep a government in office whilst defeating everything it did and denying it an election couldn't possibly be allowed to stand.
You and I have had this discussion before, and I respect your arguments on this, but I do disagree. True when we were in that position it was a shambles, but that was because it was new to MPs. However what it did give is power back to Parliament and engaged the population. All other Govt we have had have been elected dictatorships. Except for a few exceptions MPs have been powerless.
I would not want a position where a Govt could not fall, but I am happy for Parliament to tell a Govt it is wrong and to change or stand down for another group of MPs to take over the reigns if it can get the support of parliament.
This is of course the norm in many cases in the world.
They haven't abolished votes of no confidence, so Parliament can still do that.
But it doesn't does it. No Govt MPs (except in a dire situation) is going to bring down its own Govt. I want MPs to have more power to approve and question decisions of the executive. As it has been the MPs are just useless cannon fodder. Practically every Govt is an elected dictatorship. Parliament has minimal power. They should elect an executive and then hold it to account. Currently they elect the executive but contrary to what they pretend they do not hold it to account.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
But we do have our Basket of Deplorables - the part of the electorate who are simply rather parochial and xenophobic. It's not easy to size this because people do not self-identify or report as parochial or xenophobic. They'll tick 'no' to that box.
However a decent estimate can be made from the number here who when asked asked about the US election in 2020 polled as strong supporters of Donald Trump. Not just would prefer him to Biden, please note, but *strong* supporters. It was about 12% iirc. HYUFD will confirm.
Not massive but significant because these people almost all voted for Brexit and for Johnson at GE19. They were key to both those outcomes. It was Johnson's great achievement to get that xenophobic vote without alienating and losing more than he gained.
I doubt he can pull it off again. That's what I'm saying. I used to think he could but now I don't. If he does (or hints) stuff to keep them onboard I think (in what will this time not be a Brexit election) he'll turn off too many others to win. And if he lets them go he's not left with a big enough coalition.
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Elements of the British Right are simply obsessed with the FTPA because it had Dave and Nick's fingerprints on it. The fact that it takes power from parliament and gives it back to the executive - something they would normally claim to deplore - doesn't enter their collective imagination.
No, they're obsessed with FTPA because it was a disaster. Allowing a parliamentary majority to keep a government in office whilst defeating everything it did and denying it an election couldn't possibly be allowed to stand.
You and I have had this discussion before, and I respect your arguments on this, but I do disagree. True when we were in that position it was a shambles, but that was because it was new to MPs. However what it did give is power back to Parliament and engaged the population. All other Govt we have had have been elected dictatorships. Except for a few exceptions MPs have been powerless.
I would not want a position where a Govt could not fall, but I am happy for Parliament to tell a Govt it is wrong and to change or stand down for another group of MPs to take over the reigns if it can get the support of parliament.
This is of course the norm in many cases in the world.
They haven't abolished votes of no confidence, so Parliament can still do that.
But it doesn't does it. No Govt MPs (except in a dire situation) is going to bring down its own Govt. I want MPs to have more power to approve and question decisions of the executive. As it has been the MPs are just useless cannon fodder. Practically every Govt is an elected dictatorship. Parliament has minimal power. They should elect an executive and then hold it to account. Currently they elect the executive but contrary to what they pretend they do not hold it to account.
Except in the cases when they do, even governments with large majorities suffer defeats in Parliament from time to time. You make it sound like it's just a rubber stamp. In terms of calling an election, repealing the FTPA doesn't remove the ability for Parliament to eject the current government.
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Elements of the British Right are simply obsessed with the FTPA because it had Dave and Nick's fingerprints on it. The fact that it takes power from parliament and gives it back to the executive - something they would normally claim to deplore - doesn't enter their collective imagination.
No, they're obsessed with FTPA because it was a disaster. Allowing a parliamentary majority to keep a government in office whilst defeating everything it did and denying it an election couldn't possibly be allowed to stand.
You and I have had this discussion before, and I respect your arguments on this, but I do disagree. True when we were in that position it was a shambles, but that was because it was new to MPs. However what it did give is power back to Parliament and engaged the population. All other Govt we have had have been elected dictatorships. Except for a few exceptions MPs have been powerless.
I would not want a position where a Govt could not fall, but I am happy for Parliament to tell a Govt it is wrong and to change or stand down for another group of MPs to take over the reigns if it can get the support of parliament.
This is of course the norm in many cases in the world.
But a position where a government could not fall is exactly what we had for an extended period in the 2017 parliament.
You see that is where we disagree. It was the first time that parliament actually had power. I grant you it was a shambles, but that is because they weren't used to it. This is the norm elsewhere. For once there was actually debate rather than just nodding through what the executive wants (an elected dictatorship). Argue, compromise, if necessary form a new Govt, etc, etc. New election is the last resort.
That's not true. The Commons has always had the power to remove a government. What FTPA gave them was the power to deadlock everything indefinitely. It was rejecting everythign as automatically as a majority government can whip its members through the lobbies. Argument, yes, there was plenty of that - but no compromise and no willingness to form a new government because no possible government had majority support in the Commons. The deadlock was only broken because a minority party had the guts to realise the damage that was being done.
Maybe you think the Commons having the power to deadlock everything indefinitely is a good thing. I don't.
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Does any other Westminster system parliament have a fixed term?
That is a good question and a good point. Most I can think of that are very close in style to ours I don't think do (hence your point), but I assume that is because they are generally copies of our system, so I'm not sure that is particularly relevant. Lots of non Westminster style parliaments do (I would say most, but I don't know that, so not confident to say so)
The USA obviously does.
Is it mostly a question of culture and history though? I.e. Could Congress change it if it wanted to or is it in the Constitution?
The appointment of the US head of government is in the Constitution. If Congress wanted to replace the current president with anyone other than the current vice president, I believe they would have to first choose the intended new president as Speaker of the House of Representatives, then impeach and convict both the president and the vice president so close together that a new VP couldn't be chosen.
It just shows that you cannot devise a perfect system of checks and balances for all conceivable situations.
I have to tell this to so many people who try and create super detailed rules for things which cover every single step and eventuality. You can end up causing major difficulty if there's no flexibility and the precise scenario was missed. I'm genuinely impressed the US constituon has held up so well.
That was always the difference in approach to international treaties between the US and the UK. The UK preference (used to be, I don't know about now) short documents setting out intent and purpose; the US one was more akin to contract law - or even Napoleonic law - setting out in detail remedies for all potential scenarios.
Generally in Arms Control while I was still a negotiator, the trend was towards a bastard chimera - a shorter treaty with at least one general intent article, and then voluminous appendices.
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Elements of the British Right are simply obsessed with the FTPA because it had Dave and Nick's fingerprints on it. The fact that it takes power from parliament and gives it back to the executive - something they would normally claim to deplore - doesn't enter their collective imagination.
No, they're obsessed with FTPA because it was a disaster. Allowing a parliamentary majority to keep a government in office whilst defeating everything it did and denying it an election couldn't possibly be allowed to stand.
You and I have had this discussion before, and I respect your arguments on this, but I do disagree. True when we were in that position it was a shambles, but that was because it was new to MPs. However what it did give is power back to Parliament and engaged the population. All other Govt we have had have been elected dictatorships. Except for a few exceptions MPs have been powerless.
I would not want a position where a Govt could not fall, but I am happy for Parliament to tell a Govt it is wrong and to change or stand down for another group of MPs to take over the reigns if it can get the support of parliament.
This is of course the norm in many cases in the world.
They haven't abolished votes of no confidence, so Parliament can still do that.
But it doesn't does it. No Govt MPs (except in a dire situation) is going to bring down its own Govt. I want MPs to have more power to approve and question decisions of the executive. As it has been the MPs are just useless cannon fodder. Practically every Govt is an elected dictatorship. Parliament has minimal power. They should elect an executive and then hold it to account. Currently they elect the executive but contrary to what they pretend they do not hold it to account.
I agree, but this is entirely orthogonal to the question of having fixed terms.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
Am I not a member of the public.
Sure. But a rich, dyspeptic public schooled sexagenarian fox hunter with a broken collarbone is probably not the go-to guy when YouGov need to talk to ‘Mondeo Man’. For the same reason they never seem to talk to me
David L - Some time ago, there was a study in the US that showed that about 20 percent of the difference in COVID rates could be explained by weather differences. As I recall, it was a county-level study. Weather that kept people inside increased transmission. (Caveat: I only read news accounts of the study, but it seemed well done.) Perhaps Scotland has had more such weather recently?
(In recent months polls have shown that those who follow Trump have been more likely to catch COVID, but I doubt that has any effect in Scotland, despite his Scottish mother.)
Just got a text message from my GP surgery saying I can now book a second booster for Covid. Unfortunately I am about to leave the country for 5 weeks.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
Have you paused for a minute and considered that maybe, just maybe, you are not representative of the median voter's views on immigration?
Why is the median voter's views on immigration important. 49.99999% of the public will be of a more "extreme" position and 49.9999% of the public will be of a less "extreme" position.
Because the views of the median voter are actually pretty similar to the middle 20% in general. And polls have shown up to 75% of the electorate are concerned about migration at least sometimes, so you are clearly in a small minority.
"Up to 75% at least sometimes". LOL
And were there cross tabs on Polish vs Pakistani immigration.
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
By which point we will likely have a Labour government and it will be there problem (assuming there is not a Labour FM by then rendering the issue redundant).
It will be every union supporters problem. They will just have the most vital role.
If they allow it it will be their problem primarily to win it.
The Tories won't allow it, hence the problem does not arise for them
I think we would have been in a better position if the the Tories had called the SNPs bluff in 2017. It might have even resulted in a 60% no vote and the Tories could have further expanded their new found urban centrist support some of which they have now p*ssed away. They will have to directly vote for Anas Sarwar as first minister if SLab is at least joint 2nd in seats in 2026 to retain credibility on the Union. Although in fairness I don't mind Douglas Ross (compared to other roasters in the Scottish Tories) but the Tories will be hard pushed to get beyond 25% now
Still waiting to see the beginnings of a proper Labour recovery in Scotland though although I'm cautiously optimistic on Labour's fortunes on Glasgow council in May.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
But we do have our Basket of Deplorables - the part of the electorate who are simply rather parochial and xenophobic. It's not easy to size this because people do not self-identify or report as parochial or xenophobic. They'll tick 'no' to that box.
However a decent estimate can be made from the number here who when asked asked about the US election in 2020 polled as strong supporters of Donald Trump. Not just would prefer him to Biden, please note, but *strong* supporters. It was about 12% iirc. HYUFD will confirm.
Not massive but significant because these people almost all voted for Brexit and for Johnson at GE19. They were key to both those outcomes. It was Johnson's great achievement to get that xenophobic vote without alienating and losing more than he gained.
I doubt he can pull it off again. That's what I'm saying. I used to think he could but now I don't. If he does (or hints) stuff to keep them onboard I think (in what will this time not be a Brexit election) he'll turn off too many others to win. And if he lets them go he's not left with a big enough coalition.
I agree there is hard-core 10% in terms of this stuff. And I also agree that he risks alienating the swing 20% if he throws them red meat that offends the middle. That is why the optimal strategy is to focus on things like the minimum income requirement or arranged marriages for people that haven't met. It will energize his base and split Starmer's in half.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
Am I not a member of the public.
I dont know what your complaining about here.
The suggestion is that on average the public think as he has suggested. You or I might disagree but the average public view would not.
So you being of the public is not in question - what's in question is whether you are representative or not. Itd be nice if you were in bit caring, but I'm sceptical of that.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I suspect that Ukrainians also benefit from the fact they are seen as being like Poles but cheaper (in the building trade) while Pakistan has been very focused on differentiating itself from India so there’s no benefit by association
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
But we do have our Basket of Deplorables - the part of the electorate who are simply rather parochial and xenophobic. It's not easy to size this because people do not self-identify or report as parochial or xenophobic. They'll tick 'no' to that box.
However a decent estimate can be made from the number here who when asked asked about the US election in 2020 polled as strong supporters of Donald Trump. Not just would prefer him to Biden, please note, but *strong* supporters. It was about 12% iirc. HYUFD will confirm.
Not massive but significant because these people almost all voted for Brexit and for Johnson at GE19. They were key to both those outcomes. It was Johnson's great achievement to get that xenophobic vote without alienating and losing more than he gained.
I doubt he can pull it off again. That's what I'm saying. I used to think he could but now I don't. If he does (or hints) stuff to keep them onboard I think (in what will this time not be a Brexit election) he'll turn off too many others to win. And if he lets them go he's not left with a big enough coalition.
Yes 13% of British voters wanted Trump to beat Biden last year (about the same number that voted UKIP in 2015).
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
Am I not a member of the public.
Surely no-one would be so disrespectful as to suggest that you were a mere "member of the public", sir?
So is the higher rate in Scotland because we still wear masks in public buildings, etc and still have regulations about social distancing etc or despite them? Is there any evidence that our remaining restrictions actually have any efficacy at all?
I genuinely don't know the answer to this. Throughout the pandemic there was far too much emphasis on bosiness and telling people what to do and not nearly enough attention on what actually worked. And we still don't seem to know.
Is it differential recording? Mr Johnson has basically given the nudge and wink to forget covid down south.
The R levels varyt a lot, too; at the moment the English areas tend to he higher in Malmesbury's tables, but that was certainly the other way round for some time before.
Yes, if you look at admissions etc it is clear that the problem hasn't gone away in England. I have several colleagues off with it again. Of course, ignoring reality isn't a great strategy in anything but the short term.
Admissions are up sharply in all English regions. The most rapid increase is NE and Yorks, up 52% week-on-week! Other regions are up by 21-26%. 2/5 https://t.co/gfykN5dI8u
The best guess is a combination of BA2 (yes @Leon was right about it being even more infectious) and no restrictions in England at least.
Also at least 50% of those in hospital who have tested positive are there for something else. Doesn't help those running the hospital though as you still need infection control.
This is tough. There are not easy calls. Its not clear that any level of restriction that the public would wear right now would do any good. Most people who get it are absolutely fine. Some, sadly are not.
The outlook is more positive - Denmark saw a rapid rise and equally rapid collapse. Despite some gloomier posters and twitter accounts its likely that getting omicron and recovering will protect you in the future, if not from getting it again, then at least subsequent infections will tend milder.
This is a hard time. Most people want to forget covid, but the health service can't. And other sectors will have people off sick and need to cover (I've done 4 hours extra teaching today to cover a colleague).
"Some of the Russian infantry vehicles and tanks are just lost, wandering around. They don’t have communications, they don’t know where they are," Mr. Kim said.
The interesting bit of that tweet, if it is true, is that the Ukrainians are now regaining territory.
There are several different reports of Ukrainian advances today - although another of Russians taking a town elsewhere.
Have the Russians taken Izyium?
The map on Wikipedia says so. It's been said to be key to anchoring that end of the Ukrainian line in the Donbas. So if it's gone, and can't be rapidly retaken, then the Ukrainian army is said to need to retreat to its next defensive line in the Donbas.
Obviously if that goes wrong then all of Ukraine east of the Dniepr is lost.
Putin’s body language in that rally is quite peculiar. It may be wishful thinking but he doesn’t look entirely well; he certainly doesn’t look comfortable
So children are supposed to wait 12 weeks after getting Covid before being vaccinated. And we are just about to embark on: vaccinating all children and stopping regular testing.
How is that circle gonna be squared?
There will already be children in Scotland who wont be able to get two doses before the new school year starts.
Labour seems to have extended its lead back up to around 6 points.
In what universe does a no change poll extend a lead?
I think Horse was generalising over recent polls. If all the pollsters were to change methodology to Opinium's revised weightings, perhaps PB JohnsonianTories would be a little less chippy and defensive.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
Am I not a member of the public.
I dont know what your complaining about here.
The suggestion is that on average the public think as he has suggested. You or I might disagree but the average public view would not.
So you being of the public is not in question - what's in question is whether you are representative or not. Itd be nice if you were in bit caring, but I'm sceptical of that.
Well there are many versions of "the public". What percentage of the public voted for the Conservatives in 2019 for example. Absolutely and perfectly legitimate government because that's how our voting works but is "the public" in favour of the current Conservative government? Well there are opinion polls and what is the latest? 30-odd%? Does that mean "the public" is in favour?
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Perhaps. Assumes the currency and EU problems are solvable, of course. Which they aren't. Nor are pensions, tax, etc either apparently.
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
That is probably what they do need. Defeat. The whiff of stagnancy and corruption is strong in Holyrood. No party should reign forever.
A good scenario for the SNP would be a narrow election defeat, then 5 years of incompetent Coalition/Unionist government in Holyrood. Then the Nats could point and say See?! - with a vigorous new leader they would then win a big majority, and a new mandate for an indyref. By that time - 15 years after 2014 - they could also argue: a new generation is here, Scotland has the right to ask once again
I don’t believe Westminster could or should resist in that situation. = Indyref2
Yeah, maybe.
BUT that would need SNP to lose power in 2026, which they won't, as they'll be put back in by the Greens whose growth will compensate for any SNP decline. You need to understand the electoral system for Holyrood, and the List vote. The stagnation at Holyrood is just going to continue ad infinitum.
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Elements of the British Right are simply obsessed with the FTPA because it had Dave and Nick's fingerprints on it. The fact that it takes power from parliament and gives it back to the executive - something they would normally claim to deplore - doesn't enter their collective imagination.
No, they're obsessed with FTPA because it was a disaster. Allowing a parliamentary majority to keep a government in office whilst defeating everything it did and denying it an election couldn't possibly be allowed to stand.
You and I have had this discussion before, and I respect your arguments on this, but I do disagree. True when we were in that position it was a shambles, but that was because it was new to MPs. However what it did give is power back to Parliament and engaged the population. All other Govt we have had have been elected dictatorships. Except for a few exceptions MPs have been powerless.
I would not want a position where a Govt could not fall, but I am happy for Parliament to tell a Govt it is wrong and to change or stand down for another group of MPs to take over the reigns if it can get the support of parliament.
This is of course the norm in many cases in the world.
They haven't abolished votes of no confidence, so Parliament can still do that.
But it doesn't does it. No Govt MPs (except in a dire situation) is going to bring down its own Govt. I want MPs to have more power to approve and question decisions of the executive. As it has been the MPs are just useless cannon fodder. Practically every Govt is an elected dictatorship. Parliament has minimal power. They should elect an executive and then hold it to account. Currently they elect the executive but contrary to what they pretend they do not hold it to account.
I agree, but this is entirely orthogonal to the question of having fixed terms.
Yes I do seem to have gone off on a tangent, although I do think it is an element of the argument, together with PR and reduced power of the whips.
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Perhaps. Assumes the currency and EU problems are solvable, of course. Which they aren't. Nor are pensions, tax, etc either apparently.
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
That is probably what they do need. Defeat. The whiff of stagnancy and corruption is strong in Holyrood. No party should reign forever.
A good scenario for the SNP would be a narrow election defeat, then 5 years of incompetent Coalition/Unionist government in Holyrood. Then the Nats could point and say See?! - with a vigorous new leader they would then win a big majority, and a new mandate for an indyref. By that time - 15 years after 2014 - they could also argue: a new generation is here, Scotland has the right to ask once again
I don’t believe Westminster could or should resist in that situation. = Indyref2
Yeah, maybe.
BUT that would need SNP to lose power in 2026, which they won't, as they'll be put back in by the Greens whose growth will compensate for any SNP decline. You need to understand the electoral system for Holyrood, and the List vote. The stagnation at Holyrood is just going to continue ad infinitum.
Of course. I was dreaming.
It’s actually quite shit for Scotland. Labour really fucked up with Devolution
Perhaps when Sturgeon goes the tectonics might change…
Labour seems to have extended its lead back up to around 6 points.
In what universe does a no change poll extend a lead?
I think Horse was generalising over recent polls. If all the pollsters were to change methodology to Opinium's revised weightings, perhaps PB JohnsonianTories would be a little less chippy and defensive.
I'm quite relaxed about the polls. I might get a bit more interested three months before the GE.
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Elements of the British Right are simply obsessed with the FTPA because it had Dave and Nick's fingerprints on it. The fact that it takes power from parliament and gives it back to the executive - something they would normally claim to deplore - doesn't enter their collective imagination.
No, they're obsessed with FTPA because it was a disaster. Allowing a parliamentary majority to keep a government in office whilst defeating everything it did and denying it an election couldn't possibly be allowed to stand.
You and I have had this discussion before, and I respect your arguments on this, but I do disagree. True when we were in that position it was a shambles, but that was because it was new to MPs. However what it did give is power back to Parliament and engaged the population. All other Govt we have had have been elected dictatorships. Except for a few exceptions MPs have been powerless.
I would not want a position where a Govt could not fall, but I am happy for Parliament to tell a Govt it is wrong and to change or stand down for another group of MPs to take over the reigns if it can get the support of parliament.
This is of course the norm in many cases in the world.
They haven't abolished votes of no confidence, so Parliament can still do that.
But it doesn't does it. No Govt MPs (except in a dire situation) is going to bring down its own Govt. I want MPs to have more power to approve and question decisions of the executive. As it has been the MPs are just useless cannon fodder. Practically every Govt is an elected dictatorship. Parliament has minimal power. They should elect an executive and then hold it to account. Currently they elect the executive but contrary to what they pretend they do not hold it to account.
Not often enough for my tastes, true, but they do still have the power to do so. The problem is not they lack the power but lack the will to apply it.
I had high hopes for the FTPA but it didn't resolve any of the political cultural problems, and until the culture changes it couldn't prevent any of those issues as it could be worked around, so in the end it just added procedural complications to no purpose.
If the problem is MPs dont use powers they could, adding more is not a simple fix. You can have a perfect set of powers and principles and itd not matter if no one used them.
Putin’s body language in that rally is quite peculiar. It may be wishful thinking but he doesn’t look entirely well; he certainly doesn’t look comfortable
Weather in Moscow was about 6c today. He looks like he is wrapped up for an Arctic expedition. Although maybe some of it was flak jacket or similar? He looks very pale and not well.
Putin’s body language in that rally is quite peculiar. It may be wishful thinking but he doesn’t look entirely well; he certainly doesn’t look comfortable
He is clearly someone with a strong sense of grievance and how wronged his group has been. I imagine his failure is psychologically very hard for him. Very Downfallish.
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Does any other Westminster system parliament have a fixed term?
Every council and mayoral authority has fixed terms, as do the US President, Congress and House. There is no reason why we can't legislate for the terms to be fixed, and be done with.
Yes there is - a majority government could always pass a one-line bill modelled on the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019. Councils and mayoral authorities aren't sovereign and the US isn't a Westminster system so you can't draw a parallel.
This is what makes this whole argument so absurd to me: the FTPA really isn't any bar on a government choosing when it might want to hold an election. All it really does is create a 'default' date.
If Labour can convince a chunk of its Brexity target voters that it will be tough on immigration whilst at the same time reassuring its metropolitan base that it won't be, that is electoral gold and almost certainly PM Starmer.
The secret weapon for the Tories here is asking Starmer if he will scrap the minimum income arrangement that keeps out a lot of arranged brides from Pakistan.
No doubt they'll be using it if they think it'll work. But I'm less sure about them being able to win another election off the back of that sort of sentiment. I used to think it more than likely but not so much now. I think Brexit caused me to get a bit too sour about the electorate. I'm emerging from that somewhat now.
Political debate often oversimplifies the electorate as being "pro" or "anti" immigration. In reality the public is comfortable with immigration as long as they believe immigrants will integrate and become culturally similar to them in time.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Straw man. Aslan specifies migrants from rural Pakistan - not Poland - as being more problematic for UK voters. And of course @aslan is right
No he isn't. I don't care about them either.
He’s saying THE PUBLIC cares about the origin of migrants. They are much less keen on migrants from rural Pakistan than Poland. And, again, he’s right. Polls consistently show this, even if you personally disagree
Am I not a member of the public.
I dont know what your complaining about here.
The suggestion is that on average the public think as he has suggested. You or I might disagree but the average public view would not.
So you being of the public is not in question - what's in question is whether you are representative or not. Itd be nice if you were in bit caring, but I'm sceptical of that.
Well there are many versions of "the public". What percentage of the public voted for the Conservatives in 2019 for example. Absolutely and perfectly legitimate government because that's how our voting works but is "the public" in favour of the current Conservative government? Well there are opinion polls and what is the latest? 30-odd%? Does that mean "the public" is in favour?
Sort of, with caveats. And when someone uses it that will always be the case - do they mean a plurality, a majoroty etc.
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Perhaps. Assumes the currency and EU problems are solvable, of course. Which they aren't. Nor are pensions, tax, etc either apparently.
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
That is probably what they do need. Defeat. The whiff of stagnancy and corruption is strong in Holyrood. No party should reign forever.
A good scenario for the SNP would be a narrow election defeat, then 5 years of incompetent Coalition/Unionist government in Holyrood. Then the Nats could point and say See?! - with a vigorous new leader they would then win a big majority, and a new mandate for an indyref. By that time - 15 years after 2014 - they could also argue: a new generation is here, Scotland has the right to ask once again
I don’t believe Westminster could or should resist in that situation. = Indyref2
Yeah, maybe.
BUT that would need SNP to lose power in 2026, which they won't, as they'll be put back in by the Greens whose growth will compensate for any SNP decline. You need to understand the electoral system for Holyrood, and the List vote. The stagnation at Holyrood is just going to continue ad infinitum.
Of course. I was dreaming.
It’s actually quite shit for Scotland. Labour really fucked up with Devolution
Perhaps when Sturgeon goes the tectonics might change…
"Indyref2 delay due to Ukraine would 'hand Putin veto over democracy in Scotland' claim SNP"
Jacob Rees Mogg reveals the fixed term parliaments act will finally be repealed next week...
Just rejoice at that news....
Seeing as fixed terms are the norm throughout much of the world including the UK in most, if not all other elections, what is so special in giving the incumbent the right as to when to call election?
Elements of the British Right are simply obsessed with the FTPA because it had Dave and Nick's fingerprints on it. The fact that it takes power from parliament and gives it back to the executive - something they would normally claim to deplore - doesn't enter their collective imagination.
No, they're obsessed with FTPA because it was a disaster. Allowing a parliamentary majority to keep a government in office whilst defeating everything it did and denying it an election couldn't possibly be allowed to stand.
You and I have had this discussion before, and I respect your arguments on this, but I do disagree. True when we were in that position it was a shambles, but that was because it was new to MPs. However what it did give is power back to Parliament and engaged the population. All other Govt we have had have been elected dictatorships. Except for a few exceptions MPs have been powerless.
I would not want a position where a Govt could not fall, but I am happy for Parliament to tell a Govt it is wrong and to change or stand down for another group of MPs to take over the reigns if it can get the support of parliament.
This is of course the norm in many cases in the world.
They haven't abolished votes of no confidence, so Parliament can still do that.
But it doesn't does it. No Govt MPs (except in a dire situation) is going to bring down its own Govt. I want MPs to have more power to approve and question decisions of the executive. As it has been the MPs are just useless cannon fodder. Practically every Govt is an elected dictatorship. Parliament has minimal power. They should elect an executive and then hold it to account. Currently they elect the executive but contrary to what they pretend they do not hold it to account.
I agree, but this is entirely orthogonal to the question of having fixed terms.
Yes I do seem to have gone off on a tangent, although I do think it is an element of the argument, together with PR and reduced power of the whips.
I wouldn't disagree. The only problem is that, since a parliament cannot bind its successors, the question only arises when there is a minority government (as a majority government can always just pass a one-clause bill to have an early election and the unelected Lords is never going to vote against there being a general election). and when no alternative government can command a majority (as otherwise the Commons should just change the government).
Labour seems to have extended its lead back up to around 6 points.
In what universe does a no change poll extend a lead?
I think Horse was generalising over recent polls. If all the pollsters were to change methodology to Opinium's revised weightings, perhaps PB JohnsonianTories would be a little less chippy and defensive.
Why? They would all show them just two points behind in difficult mid term with a wounded albatross as leader.
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Perhaps. Assumes the currency and EU problems are solvable, of course. Which they aren't. Nor are pensions, tax, etc either apparently.
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
That is probably what they do need. Defeat. The whiff of stagnancy and corruption is strong in Holyrood. No party should reign forever.
A good scenario for the SNP would be a narrow election defeat, then 5 years of incompetent Coalition/Unionist government in Holyrood. Then the Nats could point and say See?! - with a vigorous new leader they would then win a big majority, and a new mandate for an indyref. By that time - 15 years after 2014 - they could also argue: a new generation is here, Scotland has the right to ask once again
I don’t believe Westminster could or should resist in that situation. = Indyref2
Yeah, maybe.
BUT that would need SNP to lose power in 2026, which they won't, as they'll be put back in by the Greens whose growth will compensate for any SNP decline. You need to understand the electoral system for Holyrood, and the List vote. The stagnation at Holyrood is just going to continue ad infinitum.
It depends. The voting system at Holyrood creates a scenario where the SNP could lose disastrously.
If they lose enough support that they start losing constituency seats, but their vote share in the list is lower because of vote splitting for the Greens, then they could lose a lot of FPTP constituency seats without winning compensatory list seats, and end up with a smaller proportion of seats than their constituency seat vote share.
Comments
Re, the references on PB to King Crimson a few days ago, I almost expected them to blast "21st Century Schizoid Man" through the tannoys as he walked on. Could've been written for Vlad.
Part of this thinking is the overall scale of immigration - they really don't like it getting too high and seeming uncontrolled. But even more is who is actually coming. They were against Poles at first but then found they worked hard, didn't cause social problems, and integrated into pub culture etc. Indians got a lot of discrimination when they first came here, but then as people got used to them, they found they became highly educated, adopted Western culture in a lot of ways and now even intermarriage is starting to climb.
But the public still has major issues with some groups, especially poor, rural migrants from places like Pakistan, who they see as uneducated, not integrating over time, a drain on the state and with social views they strongly dislike. This is the reason the electorate was so concerned about Syrian refugees, but less so for Ukrainians. If the Tories show Labour will increase this sort of migration, it will hurt them a lot.
https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1504128921297641474?t=apzfTDgg_CoHyPdaYv8oNw&s=19
Admissions are up sharply in all English regions. The most rapid increase is NE and Yorks, up 52% week-on-week! Other regions are up by 21-26%. 2/5 https://t.co/gfykN5dI8u
It was extremely tedious - but you could sit with your high-tech portable CD player and just mindlessly hammer away at it and earn a few easy quid.
I couldn't give a hoot if Polish people come over here, talk Polish to each other, worship the Polish god of thunder, shop at the local Polish supermarket, and never utter a word of English all day.
Takes all sorts.
Eurosceptics had to wait 40 years for their 2nd vote, Scot Nats will have to wait 15-20 years (as did Quebec Nats). 2030s
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1504801061667807239?s=20&t=15tCsgfifQ_AwSCr93n7jA
"It is understood that just days earlier, when Jewish students tried to register for the conference, they found that there was no option for kosher food, whereas all other dietary requirements, including vegan and Halal food, were catered for."
Putin's introduction and entrance -- to the roaring crowd -- is 🧐
https://twitter.com/mike_eckel/status/1504811415911211057?s=21
That is strange, why?
Possibility's:
a) Just a mistake.
b) Putin had a hart attack or similar.
c) the crowed started booing him.
I think a) is by far the most likely, but we can hope. I note that was 30 minits ago, any update?
The Tories won't allow it, hence the problem does not arise for them
A good scenario for the SNP would be a narrow election defeat, then 5 years of incompetent Coalition/Unionist government in Holyrood. Then the Nats could point and say See?! - with a vigorous new leader they would then win a big majority, and a new mandate for an indyref. By that time - 15 years after 2014 - they could also argue: a new generation is here, Scotland has the right to ask once again
I don’t believe Westminster could or should resist in that situation. = Indyref2
And I want it on record that for once I had a winning F1 bet this season...
https://labourlist.org/2022/03/exclusive-uk-voters-support-windfall-tax-on-oil-and-gas-firms-new-poll-reveals/
Essentially I think the policy will be popular, since the perception is that the fuel companies are accidentally doing jolly well out of the price boom even though the cause is supply shortage. But I shouldn't think that more than 5% of voters know it's Labour policy at the moment. Starmer's job will be to shift forward from "I am a reliable, patriotic man" onto "and I've got these reasonable, yet mildly progressive, policies for you".
A Parliamentary system requires a mechanism to allow for early elections, which once it exists means the timing of elections is more or less discretionary.
A Presidential system requires a definition of the line of succession, or a means of appointing a replacement without recourse to an election, and so can stick to a fixed timetable for elections.
Edit. Clearly in response to the wrong post. This was meant to be in response to Matt's comment on the future of tanks.
Going with favourites today. Bookies getting stung! Or properly ping’d as we should say
There is still a lot of danger in this debate for Labour.
https://twitter.com/Furkan38276857/status/1504816419720028162
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/09/23/how-hostility-immigration-has-grown
(Click through article for PDF will full stats on attitudes to immigration from around the world.)
However a decent estimate can be made from the number here who when asked asked about the US election in 2020 polled as strong supporters of Donald Trump. Not just would prefer him to Biden, please note, but *strong* supporters. It was about 12% iirc. HYUFD will confirm.
Not massive but significant because these people almost all voted for Brexit and for Johnson at GE19. They were key to both those outcomes. It was Johnson's great achievement to get that xenophobic vote without alienating and losing more than he gained.
I doubt he can pull it off again. That's what I'm saying. I used to think he could but now I don't. If he does (or hints) stuff to keep them onboard I think (in what will this time not be a Brexit election) he'll turn off too many others to win. And if he lets them go he's not left with a big enough coalition.
Maybe you think the Commons having the power to deadlock everything indefinitely is a good thing. I don't.
Generally in Arms Control while I was still a negotiator, the trend was towards a bastard chimera - a shorter treaty with at least one general intent article, and then voluminous appendices.
(In recent months polls have shown that those who follow Trump have been more likely to catch COVID, but I doubt that has any effect in Scotland, despite his Scottish mother.)
And were there cross tabs on Polish vs Pakistani immigration.
Still waiting to see the beginnings of a proper Labour recovery in Scotland though although I'm cautiously optimistic on Labour's fortunes on Glasgow council in May.
The suggestion is that on average the public think as he has suggested. You or I might disagree but the average public view would not.
So you being of the public is not in question - what's in question is whether you are representative or not. Itd be nice if you were in bit caring, but I'm sceptical of that.
Although a much higher 60% of 2019 Conservative voters now have an unfavourable view of President Biden, even if they did not back Trump in 2020
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2020/10/08/europe-wants-joe-biden-beat-donald-trump
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/17/what-do-britons-think-ukrainian-president-volodymy
Also at least 50% of those in hospital who have tested positive are there for something else. Doesn't help those running the hospital though as you still need infection control.
This is tough. There are not easy calls. Its not clear that any level of restriction that the public would wear right now would do any good. Most people who get it are absolutely fine. Some, sadly are not.
The outlook is more positive - Denmark saw a rapid rise and equally rapid collapse. Despite some gloomier posters and twitter accounts its likely that getting omicron and recovering will protect you in the future, if not from getting it again, then at least subsequent infections will tend milder.
This is a hard time. Most people want to forget covid, but the health service can't. And other sectors will have people off sick and need to cover (I've done 4 hours extra teaching today to cover a colleague).
We will get through this, and hopefully soon.
The map on Wikipedia says so. It's been said to be key to anchoring that end of the Ukrainian line in the Donbas. So if it's gone, and can't be rapidly retaken, then the Ukrainian army is said to need to retreat to its next defensive line in the Donbas.
Obviously if that goes wrong then all of Ukraine east of the Dniepr is lost.
How is that circle gonna be squared?
There will already be children in Scotland who wont be able to get two doses before the new school year starts.
BUT that would need SNP to lose power in 2026, which they won't, as they'll be put back in by the Greens whose growth will compensate for any SNP decline. You need to understand the electoral system for Holyrood, and the List vote. The stagnation at Holyrood is just going to continue ad infinitum.
Astonishing luck.
So, the big question, for me, is….
Is A Plus Tard value @ 2.85/1?
A back or a lay, at that price? Do I partially or fully cash out my acca?
Hmm.
It’s actually quite shit for Scotland. Labour really fucked up with Devolution
Perhaps when Sturgeon goes the tectonics might change…
I had high hopes for the FTPA but it didn't resolve any of the political cultural problems, and until the culture changes it couldn't prevent any of those issues as it could be worked around, so in the end it just added procedural complications to no purpose.
If the problem is MPs dont use powers they could, adding more is not a simple fix. You can have a perfect set of powers and principles and itd not matter if no one used them.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/indyref2-delay-due-to-ukraine-would-hand-putin-veto-over-democracy-in-scotland-claim-snp-3617488
Brightened my day.
If they lose enough support that they start losing constituency seats, but their vote share in the list is lower because of vote splitting for the Greens, then they could lose a lot of FPTP constituency seats without winning compensatory list seats, and end up with a smaller proportion of seats than their constituency seat vote share.
We're a long way from that though.