Whose Free Speech? – politicalbetting.com

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

So no reciprocation needed after all?

So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.

I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.

It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).

On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.

Did Starmer raise it? It was part of his leadership manifesto back in 2020. That was the only substance to what the Brexit press reported on over the weekend to induce the "Why are EU citizens getting a vote" grumbling on here yesterday. Starmer today says they havent got a policy on it yet but they are considering it.

Far more likely it was driven by the Brexit press than Starmer/Labour imo.

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

So no reciprocation needed after all?

So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.

I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.

It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).

On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.

I disagree with the reduction in the age of voting but that is more of a philosophical argument and one we have been discussing over the last few days.

But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens

Carnyx said:

Farooq said:

glw said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

So no reciprocation needed after all?

So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.

I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.

Does any politician or party propose changes to the electoral system unless they think it is to their advantage?

Yes; the SNP's continued advocacy for PR after their 2015 win was an example.

Flatlander said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Andy_JS said:

Chris said:

"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."

It's not just any old belief, though, is it?

According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."

Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?

I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.

Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...

And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.

Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.

It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.

https://lawandreligionuk.com/2018/08/07/scottish-independence-as-a-protected-philosophical-belief-mceleny/
https://brodies.com/insights/employment-and-immigration/can-a-belief-in-scottish-independence-be-a-protected-philosophical-belief/

I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter

He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”

An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself

In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.

During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.

Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.

Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.

The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!

(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)

He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly

The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.

I hesitate to intrude upon a meme with facts, but wasn’t it because the actual ferry schedule didn’t fit with Slater’s timetable hence the water taxi, a not uncommon method of transport on an island of 40? But what would those who live there know?



https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2023/05/12/a-rum-do-island-trust-defends-ministers-ferry-hire/

You're correct, and the Rum ferry doesn't go every day.

It's not brilliant PR though, particularly given the issues with MV Lochnevis previously and the use of the old and tiny MV Loch Bhrushda instead.

On the topic of the picture, it would be a real shame if Kinloch Castle went. It is such a mad place.

Surely we could flog it to Elon. I'm sure he would love to reinstate the alligators.

Turtles, not alligators, I think? They - or at least turtles anyway - were kept alive in a heated pool in the greenhouse till the next posh dinner came around. ISTR seeing the pool in what was left of the greenhouses c. 1980.

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Farooq said:

glw said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

So no reciprocation needed after all?

So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.

I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.

Does any politician or party propose changes to the electoral system unless they think it is to their advantage?

Yes; the SNP's continued advocacy for PR after their 2015 win was an example.

Flatlander said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Andy_JS said:

Chris said:

"... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."

It's not just any old belief, though, is it?

According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."

Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?

I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.

Hume and Kuhn and Feyerabend might have things to say about your belief that it's going to rain ...

And they would (arguably) be right, but not with respect to the provisions of the Equality Act.

Feyeraband may also have had things to say about Austria at Eurovision.

It's also worth noting, given the general context of the Edinburgh venue case, [edit] though obviously not an issue in it, that a belief in Scottish independence is also a protected characteristic. That came out when HMG, in the form of MoD, tried to sack a SNP pol cos he might be disloyal or something.

https://lawandreligionuk.com/2018/08/07/scottish-independence-as-a-protected-philosophical-belief-mceleny/
https://brodies.com/insights/employment-and-immigration/can-a-belief-in-scottish-independence-be-a-protected-philosophical-belief/

I’m out here in Egypt with a bunch of journos. One of them is a young, quite well known Scottish journalist, and a passionate YES supporter

He said last night that “indy” is dead in the water. “Decades away”

An interesting perspective from a true believer. He certainly wasn’t deceiving anyone, including himself

In the years running up to Indyref Salmond took the idea of independence seriously. He was very focused on Scotland having a viable economy that could deliver for its people after independence. Views will differ as to whether he succeeded or not but he was absolutely clear that this was an essential component of independence.

During the Sturgeon era all sight was lost of the importance of the economy. Her movement to the left, which in fairness was very successful in taking the central belt from Labour, was at the cost of a Statist, high tax, public sector dominated economy with highly critical views of those who had the audacity to make money or build a business.

Forbes offered a return to the Salmond viewpoint but lost out to continuity Yousless. Current policies are simply not designed to build a viable private sector tax base in Scotland, if anything they will continue to make Scotland a less attractive place to invest. So we pay more tax, have more state regulation, have a disproportionately large public sector that scoops up available talent by paying itself rather well, poorly performing schools, restrictions on the number of young Scots who can get a government subsidised university place, a lack of interest in essential infrastructure and policies such as the bottle scheme that are introduced with no thought as to their economic consequences.

Scotland is not fit to be an independent country at present. Its reliance on UK subsidy has increased. Independence now would mean substantial cuts in the public sector and even more tax rises. These problems need to be addressed in the Union or out of it. But they will indeed take decades to address. And the risk is we will continue on a path of blaming others for our failings and go even deeper into this hole before we come out the other side.

The Scottish guy here is particularly exercised by the incompetence and corruption surrounding the ferries, the terrible drug problem, and the neglect of smaller Scottish towns. All of which is down to the SNP - and he’s a SNP supporter!

(Or was - I get the feeling he is so disenchanted he might abstain next time)

He also loathes English Tories, so conversations have been lively - but friendly

The ferry fiasco is having an enormously negative impact on the Scottish islands' economy which is very largely tourism based. A Green Scottish Minister had occasion to go to one of the islands recently and thought the solution was to hire her own boat! The consequences for jobs and the retention of young people in places with very few other opportunities are going to be dire indeed.

I hesitate to intrude upon a meme with facts, but wasn’t it because the actual ferry schedule didn’t fit with Slater’s timetable hence the water taxi, a not uncommon method of transport on an island of 40? But what would those who live there know?



https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2023/05/12/a-rum-do-island-trust-defends-ministers-ferry-hire/

You're correct, and the Rum ferry doesn't go every day.

It's not brilliant PR though, particularly given the issues with MV Lochnevis previously and the use of the old and tiny MV Loch Bhrushda instead.

On the topic of the picture, it would be a real shame if Kinloch Castle went. It is such a mad place.

Surely we could flog it to Elon. I'm sure he would love to reinstate the alligators.

Turtles, not alligators, I think? They - or at least turtles anyway - were kept alive in a heated pool in the greenhouse till the next posh dinner came around. ISTR seeing the pool in what was left of the greenhouses c. 1980.

I remember the big lion skin and the "Orchestrian".

Pulpstar said:

The latest (Completely undeserved) move in for POTUS ?

Robert F Kennedy Jr into 24-1 !

@HYUFD should know that Mike "The cuck" Pence has drifted to 259-1.

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

MarqueeMark said:

dixiedean said:

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Best photo ever.

Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437

Forced smile as his team is relegated.
That's quite the metaphor.

Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.

Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.

Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

“…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?

No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins

I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆

32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?

You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.

You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆

Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?

No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it

Where do we stand when Frosty is parachuted into the HoC like a chisel toned Marine?

From your original list. Mordaunt, too woke, Tugs, too normal, so it has to be Stevie B.

@HYUFD does have his finger on the pulse of the court battles of the Tories, so I have a few quid at good odds on Barclay.

The coming electoral tsunami could take out a lot of potential candidates, or their supporters.

I assume the same people bellowing about the state of the Scottish NHS being a disqualification for Yousaf becoming leader & FM will feel the same about the at least as bad state of the English NHS in relation to Barclay.

SAme with transport - ferries may be in a fankle but look at DfT, though the ferries could and should be a lot better given that rail is in a lot better position north of the border, accoreding to repeated assessments by Modern Railways.

kamski said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kamski said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

So no reciprocation needed after all?

So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.

I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.

Jersey apparently allows all residents to vote after 2 years.

Hardly a convincing argument.

No. Just thought you might be interested.

Selebian said:

carnforth said:

JL partners wordcloud for Starmer;



I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...

The 'weak' thing is odd. The are plenty of criticisms of Starmer, but he's been ruthless in his leadership of Labour. Weak, I don't see.

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

viewcode said:

Thanks to @Cyclefree for the article, which I read with some interest. I am saddened but not surprised that after an article extolling the virtue of free speech, the comments section (with some creditable exceptions) promptly filled with people listing what they consider to be exceptions. My view on this is wearily pragmatic: free speech does not exist in the UK and the only task of the statistician is to measure it - if we are going to oppress speech then at least let's be honest about what is and is not oppressed. I would prefer the US method - see these [here][here] for examples - but we don't live there, do we.

See, though, contemporary Florida.

This is true. OK, the good States.

[As a rough rule of thumb: if it was in the Confederacy it is crap. Sorry, N'awlins, but dem's the rules]

Chris said:

Cyclefree said:

If anyone wants to read the legal advice on this issue by Aidan O'Neill KC (who has acted in a number of these cases, including the Cherry/Stand one) you can find it here - https://joannacherry.scot/images/Note by Senior Counsel for Joanna Cherry re the Stand Comedy Club - 8 May 2023.pdf.

Thanks. That's interesting. The opinion seems to lean very heavily on a single Employment Tribunal judgment to support a list of assertions about case law having established that various beliefs about gender are "philosophical beliefs", and therefore protected under the Equality Act.

It seems a rather crucial point, and I wonder why only a single judgment is cited in support of it, in an opinion running to 52 pages.

Stuartinromford said:

noneoftheabove said:

Farooq said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

NickPalmer said:

kinabalu said:

I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.

I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.

There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.

The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.

I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.

The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.

Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?

That's really not the case.
"A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.

You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though.
Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.

I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.

Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.

I can see why- two people slagging each other off makes for better telly. Or more entertaining telly. Boring centrists are... boring. Rory Stewart is trying his best to be an interesting centrist, but that's not enough.

Nigelb said:

Pulpstar said:

The latest (Completely undeserved) move in for POTUS ?

Robert F Kennedy Jr into 24-1 !

@HYUFD should know that Mike "The cuck" Pence has drifted to 259-1.

If we still had 0.5% interest rates, that would be a great lay.

DougSeal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

So no reciprocation needed after all?

So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.

I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.

We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.

Farooq said:

DougSeal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

So no reciprocation needed after all?

So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.

I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.

We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.

It's discriminatory, that's what it is. Why should Cypriots get a vote and Belgians not?

Pulpstar said:

The latest (Completely undeserved) move in for POTUS ?

Robert F Kennedy Jr into 24-1 !

@HYUFD should know that Mike "The cuck" Pence has drifted to 259-1.

Richard_Tyndall said:

DougSeal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

So no reciprocation needed after all?

So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.

I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.

We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.

It makes perfect sense. If people want to take part in deciding the future of a country then they should make the effort, show commitment and get citizenship.

Indeed we should be removing the franchise for Commonwealth citizens. It is a bit of colonial flotsam that has no place in a modern democracy.

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Labour probably wouldn't be making these controversial policy announcements if they were only 5% ahead in the polls

Changing the vote to 16 or 17 is not something to do lightly. The age of adulthood varies across topics - I find it odd that you have to be 18 to buy a pint of alcohol in the pub but would be able to vote two years earlier. Now the argument may be about physical maturity vs mental, but I don't think there is a clear cut off point. Some argue that girls mentally mature faster than boys, so why not girls at 16 and boys at 18?

In truth, just as most feel that the voter ID law was about restricting anti-Tory votes, so votes for 16 and 17 year olds will be seen as boosting left wing votes. Would those who condemned the first have the same issues with the second?

Farooq said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sandpit said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

So no reciprocation needed after all?

So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.

I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.

It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).

On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.

I disagree with the reduction in the age of voting but that is more of a philosophical argument and one we have been discussing over the last few days.

But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens

Apart from historical anomalies, why would any country allow non-citizens the vote?

If you want to vote, then take citizenship, in the UK there’s a clear application process available to long-term residents.

Indeed. Nor is it particularly arduous as a process. In the last 2 years I have acted as referee for 4 people to take British citizenship - 2 Vietnamese, a Pole and a Venezuelan. All had good English language skills which made it easier but it was a relatively straight forward process for them.

It costs over £1000 to apply. A lot of people don't have that kind of money lying around.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Stuartinromford said:

noneoftheabove said:

Farooq said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

NickPalmer said:

kinabalu said:

I support our Hate Speech laws. There are things it ought to be illegal to say regardless of whether there's an overt threat of physical violence. Eg stirring up racial hatred. Free speech is not some absolutist 'good' it has to take its place alongside other 'goods' such as fostering a society free of identity-based discrimination. We don't want untrammelled freedom of expression. Neither do we want it curtailed except in limited and defined circumstances. It's a balance and we have it about right imo.

I think that's right. In fact, it's easier to champion the right to freedom to say anything legal, if speeches clearly intended to incite hatred or cause fear are illegal.

There was a BNP event in my constituency when I was an MP, and a big demo denouncing them. I supported the right of both the BNP and the demonstrators to express any legal opinions, although I was obviously closer to the latter.

The "10 Pound Poms" series that started last night was pretty good, I thought, and a useful illustration of what it's like to be a victim of discrimination even if one's white.

I'm looking forward to watching that series. Freedom of speech except for things like stirring up identity-based hatred. Then a ton of argument away from the strict letter of the law about who gets a platform and who doesn't, people taking sides, some on principle and some because of partisanship, exaggeration from those with an axe to grind, some people more animated than others about the whole issue ... this is 'us' and it's basically all good. Overall, I mean, not as in everything is perfect and doesn't need to be watched closely.

The whole point of Freedom of Speech, is that everyone “gets a platform”.

Remember Nick Griffin on Question time, who spent 90% of the show embarrassing the hell out of himself, and the other 10% talking about the (then unknown) scandal in Rotherham?

That's really not the case.
"A platform' encompasses a large universe of things, many of which are absolutely not free to everyone.

You can argue (and I'd probably agree with you) that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was a good thing. There was no obligation to do so, though.
Similarly, CNN had no obligation for the recent provision of a platform to Trump, to hold what was effectively an hour long political broadcast, thinly disguised as a debate. They went ahead with it, but were fools to do so.

I'm not sure what the rules are for American broadcasters, but there is a requirement that BBC political output is somewhat balanced. I feel it often falls short of that requirement, as it happens, but never mind that. I think it's clear that there absolutely is an obligation on the BBC to represent a diversity of views in programs like QT.

Boring centrists are underrepresented on the BBC. Their interpretation of balance seems to be get two people with strong opposite views to slag each other off.

I can see why- two people slagging each other off makes for better telly. Or more entertaining telly. Boring centrists are... boring. Rory Stewart is trying his best to be an interesting centrist, but that's not enough.

Perhaps they should try having two weather forecasters with opposing ideas of what the weather will be and how it should be presented.

Farooq said:

This is like those tedious arguments where people claim that there are no unselfish acts. "Ah, but if you get a good feeling from it, you're getting something out of it!!!1!"
Even though what you're saying is probably true in the majority of cases, but when presented with a really clear counterexample you're making speculative assumptions that I think you simply won't do in other cases.
For example, a large sector of foreign nationals in the UK is those born in Poland. A lot of them have a fairly socially conservative outlook. Would adding them to UK elections benefit Labour? I'm am really not so sure it would.

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DougSeal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

So no reciprocation needed after all?

So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.

I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vote rigging is enough to change that view.

We already allow Commonwealth nationals, including 2 EU countries, to vote here. In fact nationals of 3 EU countries already have the unrestricted right to vote in the UK. Makes no sense to exclude the others who are here lawfully.

It makes perfect sense. If people want to take part in deciding the future of a country then they should make the effort, show commitment and get citizenship.

Indeed we should be removing the franchise for Commonwealth citizens. It is a bit of colonial flotsam that has no place in a modern democracy.

I wonder who the Commonwealth voters favour? If the Tories ditched them for the reasons you give, would the opposition kick off?

I think history makes keeping it inevitable, but restricting the franchise to permanent residents is something to support.

Selebian said:

carnforth said:

JL partners wordcloud for Starmer;



I wonder if Ed Davey is so unknown that he could appear new and fresh to the public in the GE campaign, and take a surprising chunk of votes? He's hardly charismatic, but still...

The 'weak' thing is odd. The are plenty of criticisms of Starmer, but he's been ruthless in his leadership of Labour. Weak, I don't see.

kamski said:

Farooq said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sandpit said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Keir Starmer confirms Labour considering extending vote in general elections to EU nationals and 16/17-year-olds

Labour leader also refuses to rule out deal with Lib Dems, saying he wants outright majority but will ‘see what situation is next year’"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/15/local-election-results-labour-tactical-voting-considered-keir-starmer-tories-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live

So no reciprocation needed after all?

So Starmer wants us to become the only country in Europe that allows non nationals to vote in the national elections (excepting the reciprocal arrangments we have with Ireland). Specifically those he thinks are most likely to vote for him and his policies.

I have said up until now that I don't fear a Labour Government. This blatant attempt at vte rigging is enough to change that view.

It is by no means obvious that EU nationals working here would vote Labour, but it is hard to see why Starmer is raising this now (or a couple of days ago when we last discussed it).

On 16- and 17-year-olds, George Osborne advocated that extension of the franchise. I'm not sure it is a party political matter.

I disagree with the reduction in the age of voting but that is more of a philosophical argument and one we have been discussing over the last few days.

But extending the franchise to non citizens - something no other country in Europe does - is simply wrong and is clearly an attempt to sway the votes in favour of those parties and issues Starmer has sympathy with. It is vote rigging at its most blatant. If people want to vote on the future of this country then they can become British citizens

Apart from historical anomalies, why would any country allow non-citizens the vote?

If you want to vote, then take citizenship, in the UK there’s a clear application process available to long-term residents.

Indeed. Nor is it particularly arduous as a process. In the last 2 years I have acted as referee for 4 people to take British citizenship - 2 Vietnamese, a Pole and a Venezuelan. All had good English language skills which made it easier but it was a relatively straight forward process for them.

It costs over £1000 to apply. A lot of people don't have that kind of money lying around.

1000 quid to vote in a general election is a lot. Most people wouldn't pay it.

And there are many countries that don't allow dual citizenship. If you have all the rights of permanent residency in the UK, it is difficult to give up the citizenship of the country you are from, where you may still have family that you might conceivably need to take care of at some point for example, just in order to secure a vote in a general election.