"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
Tbh it just seems Sunak is having some sort of insular argument with himself. Blue wall will hate his net zero stuff. Red wall and the north will feel aggrieved by possible HS2 cut. Inheritance tax - effects such a small proportion of us. Guessing it’s the right in the party pulling the strings
Remember: nothing - absolutely nothing - will be done here without it first being extensively polled and focus grouped. These ideas aren't simply dreamed up on ConHome and then spat out there to see if it sticks.
There is some political risk in its delivery, and its timing, but also opportunity in how the Opposition may respond, or screw up a response.
In politics, you think, you test, you make the call, and you place your bets where you can.
I think most think it’s an unfair tax . It’s a form of double taxation . The problem for Sunak is there are so many areas that could do with the amount of money it could cost and it smacks of desperation. And in terms of priorities how do you stand there and justify it when schools are crumbling etc .
The opposition should simply frame it as the country not being able to afford it when there are other pressing needs . I think that’s the safest line .
Ireland won’t win the World Cup because they are doing a lap of honour with their kids after winning a group game. It’s a group game and not the final.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
Has any footage of this incident come out. From what I can gather Kaba was using his vehicle as a weapon. If that's the case then it's a legitimate release if I'm on the jury
Apparently the kicking side of rugby is crap and not important.
It's crap but exceptionally important.
Would people be calling SA crap if they had kicked those 11 points and win?
No. But the importance of goalkicking makes the game tedious to the uninitiated. Rugby Union fans are raving about this game. I'm finding it dull. I just don't get excited by two minutes to set a dominant scrum, winning a penalty, then kicking a goal. It's 5 minutes of my life I could have back. This, incidentally, is why, contrary to the continual insistence of Union fans since 1995, rugby league has shown no signs of dying out.
Perhaps not dying out, but it’s hardly expanding. The league World Cup is even more restricted that the Union one.
Yes but. League has always been a hyper local club game. Internationals have never been important. No League fan would put up with the sheer number of stoppages for injuries, scrums and kicks at goal.*
*I actually love rugby. Both Union and League. Played both to a very high youth standard, before injuries (and drugs, sex and booze got in the way).
Just find Union very frustrating. Don't think Union fans in general realise why the average non-rugby punter won't think that was entertaining.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
There’s never been a referendum on PR. There’s been one on AV, which isn’t proportional,
Do you think the result would have been different?
Well, I would have voted for PR instead of against AV.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
FFS They need to grow up and accept that they must be seen to be subject to the law. Horrible as it is for the officer being charged the family of Kaba is suffering more. But yet another example of the Mets institutional arrogance. And they wonder why the force is reviled by the rest of UK policing.
The last time we went round the block on abolishing inheritance tax (July) we asked YouGov to poll it.
Is the priority of just 10% of people, and 16% of Tory voters
As for the politics, I’m pretty confident that of all the things Team Starmer might struggle to land, I think they’ll be ok with “millionaire’s tax cut”
Abolishing inheritance tax outright would be worth up to £290 million to Rishi Sunak's own children - given his wealth of £730 million, and a tax levied at 40% after the first £1 million.
A Yougov poll last year found 48% of voters want to abolish IHT completely (including 60% of Conservative voters) just 37% opposed.
The UK IHT is very fair compared to many other countries . Reducing it which will cost billions whilst social care is collapsing sums up this government.
Where are the Tories going to find all this money to deliver their desperate election bribes or are those questions only relevant to the opposition parties ?
No it isn't, some countries like Australia and Sweden have abolished it completely and in the US Federal income tax isn't paid for estates under about $10 million.
This will be in the Tory manifesto as a goodie for the bluewall in particular if they re elect the Tories
The Bank of England's bond sell off has cost the Treasury £24bn in the past year, and they plan to sell £100bn of bonds over the course of next year. This is profligacy on an unimaginable scale - imagine Sunak announcing a policy that would cost the taxpayer £24bn?
This programme needs to be signed off by Hunt, so why is he insisting there is 'no possibility of tax cuts' when he's happy to piss these sorts of sums up the wall at the Bank's behest?
The last time we went round the block on abolishing inheritance tax (July) we asked YouGov to poll it.
Is the priority of just 10% of people, and 16% of Tory voters
As for the politics, I’m pretty confident that of all the things Team Starmer might struggle to land, I think they’ll be ok with “millionaire’s tax cut”
Abolishing inheritance tax outright would be worth up to £290 million to Rishi Sunak's own children - given his wealth of £730 million, and a tax levied at 40% after the first £1 million.
A Yougov poll last year found 48% of voters want to abolish IHT completely (including 60% of Conservative voters) just 37% opposed.
A lot of people think they’re going to be effected when in reality it’s a tiny proportion of estates that qualify . This of course helps the Tories . I think it’s more difficult in the current climate to do this though .
The Duke of Sussex must give due notice if he wishes to stay on a royal estate, The Telegraph understands, after he was denied a room at Windsor Castle earlier this month.
The Duke flew to London for the WellChild Awards, an annual charity event that this year fell on the eve of the first anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II’s death.
Having established that it would be impossible to see his father due to their diary commitments and because the King was at Balmoral, the Duke asked if he could instead stay at Windsor Castle.
The arrangement would have enabled him to easily visit his grandmother’s resting place at St George’s Chapel, Windsor, the following day, which he also asked if he could do.
The visit was the Duke’s first since the Sussexes were evicted from Frogmore Cottage, their former Windsor home. It means they are now “homeless” when on UK soil and must ask permission from Buckingham Palace to stay on one of the royal estates.
Royal sources have stressed that such provision will be made where possible but that the palace must be given suitable warning of any such visit.
The Duke is next expecting to be in the UK in January, when his claim against News Group Newspapers, the publisher of The Sun, for alleged unlawful information gathering is due to be heard at the High Court.
The Duke’s office first contacted Buckingham Palace after confirming his attendance at the WellChild Awards.
It said the Duke would love to see his father and stay with him if at all possible.
However, he was told he would have to put in a formal request. It is unclear whether the King was aware of such correspondence.
I see that amongst the reforms Sunak has dropped, less publicised, has been the requirement for landlords to ensure their properties are C rated for energy efficiency at least.
This is absurd.
If you want to be a landlord your property should be of a decent standard and habitable. Expecting tenants to pay through the nose for energy because landlords can't be bothered to make homes habitable is utterly insane.
Shame on Sunak.
The 'EPC rating' has nothing to do with the quality of accommodation. It is a rating system for energy efficiency. The incoming requirement to achieve a set 'level' to let out properties out has been a major contributory factor in private landlords exiting the market. This has, in combination with other things, pushed up rents by hundreds of pounds a month across the entirety of UK because of a shortage of supply. The energy savings from the measures come at great cost (ie double glazing) and hassle, and probably save a few quid a month to tenants. Instead they are replacing it with what seems like a better system, incentivising the upgrades through grants.
But isn't that a subsidy for landlords? And plenty of MP landlords, especially (but not only) Tories.
@Carnyx They have no option other than to create a subsidy for landlords because otherwise local authorities have to fund temporary housing for those at risk of homelessness at even greater cost, and now local authorities are going bankrupt because of this.
Basically the whole policy area (housing) is in a mess with no answer. We are on the 16th housing minister since 2010.
Dog owners need to be held responsible for attacks by their dogs in exactly the same way as they would be if they had personally attacked someone themselves.
They are already responsible, under the Dangerous Dogs Act Section 3. Though I am not sure if I would extend this to putting the owner down. And "be *held* responsible" is perhaps the issue.
(1)If a dog is dangerously out of control in [F1 any place [F2in England or Wales] (whether or not a public place)])—
(a)the owner; and (b)if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person [F3or assistance dog], an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
I was suddenly reminded of Martin Amis's Lionel Asbo.
"Lionel Asbo is a "brutally generic" yob. He looks a bit like Wayne Rooney: "the slab-like body, the full lump of the face, the tight-shaved crown with its tawny stubble"." (guardian)
"Who let the dogs in? …This, we fear, is going to be the question. Who let the dogs in?
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
FFS They need to grow up and accept that they must be seen to be subject to the law. Horrible as it is for the officer being charged the family of Kaba is suffering more. But yet another example of the Mets institutional arrogance. And they wonder why the force is reviled by the rest of UK policing.
The last time we went round the block on abolishing inheritance tax (July) we asked YouGov to poll it.
Is the priority of just 10% of people, and 16% of Tory voters
As for the politics, I’m pretty confident that of all the things Team Starmer might struggle to land, I think they’ll be ok with “millionaire’s tax cut”
Abolishing inheritance tax outright would be worth up to £290 million to Rishi Sunak's own children - given his wealth of £730 million, and a tax levied at 40% after the first £1 million.
A Yougov poll last year found 48% of voters want to abolish IHT completely (including 60% of Conservative voters) just 37% opposed.
A lot of people think they’re going to be effected when in reality it’s a tiny proportion of estates that qualify . This of course helps the Tories . I think it’s more difficult in the current climate to do this though .
For the Tory core vote Sunak needs to turn out next year, many DK or RefUK, it isn't
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
The best reason to vote Labour at the next election at the moment is in order to get HS2 built in full.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
The best reason to vote Labour at the next election at the moment is in order to get HS2 built in full.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
Electing the person with the most voters as your representative is not “wildly undemocratic”.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 10h I'll say again: HS2 is **not** about the speed, it's about the capacity. You may not be able to get on a North-South train **anywhere** if you don't build it properly. This is such a disaster in the making.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
The most rightwing leader of a western nation at the moment is Meloni in Italy which has PR.
It was PR which enabled her Brothers of Italy party to come to power. The Nazis also built a powerbase in Germany with PR
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
HS2 isn't uniformly popular in the red wall. More support near the terminals but views only range from indifference to opposition away from the stations.
Rishi Sunak draws up plans to slash inheritance tax
Targeting ‘the most hated tax in Britain’ is just one of the crowd-pleasing policy changes in the mix for the Tory conference
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans to slash inheritance tax, which his officials have called “the most hated tax in Britain”.
Cutting the levy before eventually abolishing it entirely is one of a raft of crowd-pleasing announcements being considered before next month’s Conservative Party conference.
As part of his pledge to announce a series of long-term decisions designed to change Britain, Sunak would frame the policy as an “aspirational offer to voteFrs” ahead of the general election....
...Three sources confirmed that there is a live discussion at the highest level of government about reforming inheritance tax. One proposal being considered is for Sunak to announce his intention to phase out the levy by reducing the 40 per cent inheritance tax rate in the budget in March, while setting out a pathway to abolish it completely in future years.
This would tally with comments made last week by Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, that there would be no tax cuts when he presents his latest plan at the end of November.
It would also make inheritance tax an election issue and put Sir Keir Starmer on the spot about whether he was prepared to make the same cuts in years to come.
If there's room for tax cuts, then how about ending fiscal drag as starters? Or working to abolish the payroll tax/employers NI. And so on?
Though as it happens, I agree that inheritance tax should be abolished. Instead inheritance should be treated exactly the same as any other income, so liable in full to income tax (including of course NI) on the entire inheritance above personal allowance just the same as regular income is.
Rishi Sunak draws up plans to slash inheritance tax
Targeting ‘the most hated tax in Britain’ is just one of the crowd-pleasing policy changes in the mix for the Tory conference
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans to slash inheritance tax, which his officials have called “the most hated tax in Britain”.
Cutting the levy before eventually abolishing it entirely is one of a raft of crowd-pleasing announcements being considered before next month’s Conservative Party conference.
As part of his pledge to announce a series of long-term decisions designed to change Britain, Sunak would frame the policy as an “aspirational offer to voteFrs” ahead of the general election....
...Three sources confirmed that there is a live discussion at the highest level of government about reforming inheritance tax. One proposal being considered is for Sunak to announce his intention to phase out the levy by reducing the 40 per cent inheritance tax rate in the budget in March, while setting out a pathway to abolish it completely in future years.
This would tally with comments made last week by Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, that there would be no tax cuts when he presents his latest plan at the end of November.
It would also make inheritance tax an election issue and put Sir Keir Starmer on the spot about whether he was prepared to make the same cuts in years to come.
If there's room for tax cuts, then how about ending fiscal drag as starters? Or working to abolish the payroll tax/employers NI. And so on?
Though as it happens, I agree that inheritance tax should be abolished. Instead inheritance should be treated exactly the same as any other income, so liable in full to income tax (including of course NI) on the entire inheritance above personal allowance just the same as regular income is.
NI should be hypothecated for the state pension, contributions based JSA and some healthcare and social care
I see that amongst the reforms Sunak has dropped, less publicised, has been the requirement for landlords to ensure their properties are C rated for energy efficiency at least.
This is absurd.
If you want to be a landlord your property should be of a decent standard and habitable. Expecting tenants to pay through the nose for energy because landlords can't be bothered to make homes habitable is utterly insane.
Shame on Sunak.
The 'EPC rating' has nothing to do with the quality of accommodation. It is a rating system for energy efficiency. The incoming requirement to achieve a set 'level' to let out properties out has been a major contributory factor in private landlords exiting the market. This has, in combination with other things, pushed up rents by hundreds of pounds a month across the entirety of UK because of a shortage of supply. The energy savings from the measures come at great cost (ie double glazing) and hassle, and probably save a few quid a month to tenants. Instead they are replacing it with what seems like a better system, incentivising the upgrades through grants.
Having to pay hundreds extra for gas and electricity each year because of poor quality draughty homes that don't have basic insulation is absolutely to do with the quality of accommodation.
As for any slumlords who leave the market because they don't want their homes to meet a minimum quality for their tenants - good riddance!
I'm with you on this one, Bart.
Crazy policy by Rishi. LMF.
They have a successful programme that has delivered major benefits over a long period, and he cans it in search of Schrodinger's Tory Voter.
As an accidental landlord my view is it is great that there is a programme pushing the rental sector towards much more energy efficiency.
But... government needs to meet half way over costs. Because they are not mandating owner-occupiers to do all this remedial work in their own homes so it seems a little unfair to say 'only landlords must do this'.
How's it unfair?
If you don't want to do remedial work in your own home then you're the one liable to pay extra energy costs due to the home being draughty etc
If you don't want to do remedial work on someone else's home that you let out then you're leaving them liable to pay extra energy costs due to their home being draughty etc because of your neglect.
How you get a home you're letting upto habitable standards should be up to you, via a free market, but if you don't want to meet minimum standards then that's a problem.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
HS2 isn't uniformly popular in the red wall. More support near the terminals but views only range from indifference to opposition away from the stations.
Are you sure about that. HS2 doesn’t impact me at all but the inability for. Country to announce a big project and completely fail to deliver it would be a national embarrassment.
Much in the way that the Berlin tour guide last weekend made jokes about the airport…
Edit to add - much like Berlin airport the added costs come from not allowing the finalised design to be completed as originally agreed
Rishi Sunak draws up plans to slash inheritance tax
Targeting ‘the most hated tax in Britain’ is just one of the crowd-pleasing policy changes in the mix for the Tory conference
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans to slash inheritance tax, which his officials have called “the most hated tax in Britain”.
Cutting the levy before eventually abolishing it entirely is one of a raft of crowd-pleasing announcements being considered before next month’s Conservative Party conference.
As part of his pledge to announce a series of long-term decisions designed to change Britain, Sunak would frame the policy as an “aspirational offer to voteFrs” ahead of the general election....
...Three sources confirmed that there is a live discussion at the highest level of government about reforming inheritance tax. One proposal being considered is for Sunak to announce his intention to phase out the levy by reducing the 40 per cent inheritance tax rate in the budget in March, while setting out a pathway to abolish it completely in future years.
This would tally with comments made last week by Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, that there would be no tax cuts when he presents his latest plan at the end of November.
It would also make inheritance tax an election issue and put Sir Keir Starmer on the spot about whether he was prepared to make the same cuts in years to come.
If there's room for tax cuts, then how about ending fiscal drag as starters? Or working to abolish the payroll tax/employers NI. And so on?
Though as it happens, I agree that inheritance tax should be abolished. Instead inheritance should be treated exactly the same as any other income, so liable in full to income tax (including of course NI) on the entire inheritance above personal allowance just the same as regular income is.
NI should be hypothecated for the state pension, contributions based JSA and some healthcare and social care
No problems with that.
It should also be paid by everyone, on all income. It can be hypothecated all the way then, but everyone of every age should pay it on every income they make, not only employment-based income.
Hypothecation is fine. Insisting some pay while others don't is not.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
The most rightwing leader of a western nation at the moment is Meloni in Italy which has PR.
It was PR which enabled her Brothers of Italy party to come to power. The Nazis also built a powerbase in Germany with PR
So what? The majority of democratic political systems use some form of PR, and its pretty arguable that Meloni is more right wing than -say- Truss. The language used by the current Tory claque about immigration is arguably even more extreme than the Italians.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
It's coalitions within parties vs coalitions between parties. I prefer the former, because the electorate has full information before the election. With PR, the governing coalition is decided after the election, without reference to the voters.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
The most rightwing leader of a western nation at the moment is Meloni in Italy which has PR.
It was PR which enabled her Brothers of Italy party to come to power. The Nazis also built a powerbase in Germany with PR
So what? The majority of democratic political systems use some form of PR, and its pretty arguable that Meloni is more right wing than -say- Truss. The language used by the current Tory claque about immigration is arguably even more extreme than the Italians.
France doesn't, the US and Canada and Australia and India and Nigeria don't either, nor do we.
Meloni is introducing a bill to make surrogacy by homosexual families illegal, Italy already being one of the few western nations without gay marriage now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66860266 She also takes a hard line on immigration, she is no Liz Truss other than also being for small government economically
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
The most rightwing leader of a western nation at the moment is Meloni in Italy which has PR.
It was PR which enabled her Brothers of Italy party to come to power. The Nazis also built a powerbase in Germany with PR
So what? The majority of democratic political systems use some form of PR, and its pretty arguable that Meloni is more right wing than -say- Truss. The language used by the current Tory claque about immigration is arguably even more extreme than the Italians.
She has certainly rowed back from a lot of stuff on assuming high office.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
PR has a small effect to increase the number of effective national parties, but it's not huge -- see the work of Arend Lijphart. The presumption of such a result in the UK under PR is in error. We don't know what would happen. Some countries with PR or semi-PR have kept broad church parties (e.g. Japan, Ireland, South Africa, Malta). Others see the political spectrum more divided up (as with many northern European countries).
Of course, we already do have an AfD style party and more than one Corbynite left party. Indeed, the former, by which I mean UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform UK, have had huge impact on Britain under FPTP already, while RESPECT got an MP elected.
We can make estimates of what would happen to MP numbers under PR (LibDems, Greens, Reform UK and UUP up; SNP, PC, SF and DUP down). It might see more parties in the Commons through smaller parties winning seats or through new parties forming. But we don't know. We should judge the proposal not on guesses as to who might benefit but on whether the electoral system works better (recognising that is a much debated question).
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
HS2 isn't uniformly popular in the red wall. More support near the terminals but views only range from indifference to opposition away from the stations.
Are you sure about that. HS2 doesn’t impact me at all but the inability for. Country to announce a big project and completely fail to deliver it would be a national embarrassment.
Much in the way that the Berlin tour guide last weekend made jokes about the airport…
Well I only saw stop HS2 signs in Killamarsh when the now nixed line was going to go through leading to the demolition essentially of Station Road and similar opposition when the Parklands horse equipment/feed store (Either Valley constituency) was under threat. Right now the whole project is in danger of turning into a high speed Brum Ealing link which wouldn't help anyone much.
I find that strange . The Lib Dems and Labour both want to re-work aspects of the trade deal. The Lib Dems if they want to win those marginals in the south have to tread a fine line .
I see that amongst the reforms Sunak has dropped, less publicised, has been the requirement for landlords to ensure their properties are C rated for energy efficiency at least.
This is absurd.
If you want to be a landlord your property should be of a decent standard and habitable. Expecting tenants to pay through the nose for energy because landlords can't be bothered to make homes habitable is utterly insane.
Shame on Sunak.
The 'EPC rating' has nothing to do with the quality of accommodation. It is a rating system for energy efficiency. The incoming requirement to achieve a set 'level' to let out properties out has been a major contributory factor in private landlords exiting the market. This has, in combination with other things, pushed up rents by hundreds of pounds a month across the entirety of UK because of a shortage of supply. The energy savings from the measures come at great cost (ie double glazing) and hassle, and probably save a few quid a month to tenants. Instead they are replacing it with what seems like a better system, incentivising the upgrades through grants.
But isn't that a subsidy for landlords? And plenty of MP landlords, especially (but not only) Tories.
@Carnyx They have no option other than to create a subsidy for landlords because otherwise local authorities have to fund temporary housing for those at risk of homelessness at even greater cost, and now local authorities are going bankrupt because of this.
Basically the whole policy area (housing) is in a mess with no answer. We are on the 16th housing minister since 2010.
There are plenty of options other than creating a subsidy for landlords.
The best being to build more houses.
Slumlords who don't want to invest in maintaining their buildings quality exiting the market doesn't reduce the quantity of buildings at all, if they sell up then someone else can buy it - whether that be a landlord that is prepared to invest in quality rather than being a slumlord, or Councils or housing associations buying to let out, or would-be owners buying so they don't need to rent anymore which is a reduction of one of houses available to let, and a reduction of one of families wanting to let, so a net change of zero in housing stock.
I find that strange . The Lib Dems and Labour both want to re-work aspects of the trade deal. The Lib Dems if they want to win those marginals in the south have to tread a fine line .
Isn't it the South West were going all for rejoin would be a problem for Liberals??
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
The most rightwing leader of a western nation at the moment is Meloni in Italy which has PR.
It was PR which enabled her Brothers of Italy party to come to power. The Nazis also built a powerbase in Germany with PR
So what? The majority of democratic political systems use some form of PR, and its pretty arguable that Meloni is more right wing than -say- Truss. The language used by the current Tory claque about immigration is arguably even more extreme than the Italians.
France doesn't, the US and Canada and Australia and India and Nigeria don't either, nor do we
It's not just about proportional vs. majoritarian systems. It's also about ordinal vs. non-ordinal systems. France (with 2 round elections) and Australia (with AV) have ordinal systems, which are majoritarian but ordinal systems, and thus give their electorates more choice, more control than FPTP. The US primary system is kinda like an ordinal system as well.
Of course, Australia does have PR (STV) for its second house. Canada keeps coming close to adopting PR, and parts of Canada were using STV around the mid-20th century. Support for PR is growing in India. Bits of the US have dumped FPTP.
I find that strange . The Lib Dems and Labour both want to re-work aspects of the trade deal. The Lib Dems if they want to win those marginals in the south have to tread a fine line .
Actually re join would make sense as it is growing in popularity, especially in their seats, and it would be a real differentiator from Labour
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
HS2 isn't uniformly popular in the red wall. More support near the terminals but views only range from indifference to opposition away from the stations.
Are you sure about that. HS2 doesn’t impact me at all but the inability for. Country to announce a big project and completely fail to deliver it would be a national embarrassment.
Much in the way that the Berlin tour guide last weekend made jokes about the airport…
Well I only saw stop HS2 signs in Killamarsh when the now nixed line was going to go through leading to the demolition essentially of Station Road and similar opposition when the Parklands horse equipment/feed store (Either Valley constituency) was under threat. Right now the whole project is in danger of turning into a high speed Brum Ealing link which wouldn't help anyone much.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
HS2 isn't uniformly popular in the red wall. More support near the terminals but views only range from indifference to opposition away from the stations.
Are you sure about that. HS2 doesn’t impact me at all but the inability for. Country to announce a big project and completely fail to deliver it would be a national embarrassment.
Much in the way that the Berlin tour guide last weekend made jokes about the airport…
Well I only saw stop HS2 signs in Killamarsh when the now nixed line was going to go through leading to the demolition essentially of Station Road and similar opposition when the Parklands horse equipment/feed store (Either Valley constituency) was under threat. Right now the whole project is in danger of turning into a high speed Brum Ealing link which wouldn't help anyone much.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
HS2 isn't uniformly popular in the red wall. More support near the terminals but views only range from indifference to opposition away from the stations.
I've always been opposed to HS2. So much environmental damage for a railway we don't need.
But building the London leg while cancelling both northern branches is just a big Fuck You to Northerners.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
It's coalitions within parties vs coalitions between parties. I prefer the former, because the electorate has full information before the election. With PR, the governing coalition is decided after the election, without reference to the voters.
Under PR, parties are usually clear about what coalitions they would favour. Broadly, the voters vote knowing the outline of the governing coalition that will result. It's not some random process!
And, of course, with broad church parties, you might vote for the party expecting one faction within it to dominate, generally represented by the leader at the time, and then you get a quite different version of the party taking over. As when Johnson replaced May, or when Truss replaced Johnson, or when Sunak replaced Truss.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
HS2 isn't uniformly popular in the red wall. More support near the terminals but views only range from indifference to opposition away from the stations.
I've always been opposed to HS2. So much environmental damage for a railway we don't need.
But building the London leg while cancelling both northern branches is just a big Fuck You to Northerners.
I find that strange . The Lib Dems and Labour both want to re-work aspects of the trade deal. The Lib Dems if they want to win those marginals in the south have to tread a fine line .
Isn't it the South West were going all for rejoin would be a problem for Liberals??
I just don’t see the appetite to re-run the referendum , I know loads of Remainers who just think it’s too soon , I’m as pro EU as you can get and I think the same . In terms of the sw it would be particularly risky and I think generally across the country I don’t think it’s a great idea .
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
The most rightwing leader of a western nation at the moment is Meloni in Italy which has PR.
It was PR which enabled her Brothers of Italy party to come to power. The Nazis also built a powerbase in Germany with PR
The most rightwing leader of a democratic nation might be Modi, elected under FPTP.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
HS2 isn't uniformly popular in the red wall. More support near the terminals but views only range from indifference to opposition away from the stations.
I've always been opposed to HS2. So much environmental damage for a railway we don't need.
But building the London leg while cancelling both northern branches is just a big Fuck You to Northerners.
Levelling Up, my arse.
Yet another reason why building motorways would have been far better value for money than HS2.
Plus if you want to "level up" then linking places together, eg via motorways, rather than insisting everywhere connects to London actually does that.
But if you're going to spend all that money on HS2, then do it properly and build it in full, all the way through the North.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
HS2 isn't uniformly popular in the red wall. More support near the terminals but views only range from indifference to opposition away from the stations.
Are you sure about that. HS2 doesn’t impact me at all but the inability for. Country to announce a big project and completely fail to deliver it would be a national embarrassment.
Much in the way that the Berlin tour guide last weekend made jokes about the airport…
Well I only saw stop HS2 signs in Killamarsh when the now nixed line was going to go through leading to the demolition essentially of Station Road and similar opposition when the Parklands horse equipment/feed store (Either Valley constituency) was under threat. Right now the whole project is in danger of turning into a high speed Brum Ealing link which wouldn't help anyone much.
The Aston to Acton Expressway.
One question. If it's not going to Euston did the Bree Louise pub have to die. I only went there once but it had a certain atmosphere
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
It's coalitions within parties vs coalitions between parties. I prefer the former, because the electorate has full information before the election. With PR, the governing coalition is decided after the election, without reference to the voters.
Under PR, parties are usually clear about what coalitions they would favour. Broadly, the voters vote knowing the outline of the governing coalition that will result. It's not some random process!
And, of course, with broad church parties, you might vote for the party expecting one faction within it to dominate, generally represented by the leader at the time, and then you get a quite different version of the party taking over. As when Johnson replaced May, or when Truss replaced Johnson, or when Sunak replaced Truss.
Would a PR system prevent the changing of PM without an election? Perhaps changing PM would make coalitions fall apart and different coalitions form with the new PM. That's as bad, surely?
I find that strange . The Lib Dems and Labour both want to re-work aspects of the trade deal. The Lib Dems if they want to win those marginals in the south have to tread a fine line .
Isn't it the South West were going all for rejoin would be a problem for Liberals??
I just don’t see the appetite to re-run the referendum , I know loads of Remainers who just think it’s too soon , I’m as pro EU as you can get and I think the same . In terms of the sw it would be particularly risky and I think generally across the country I don’t think it’s a great idea .
Absolutely agreed. It’s done. Move on. A closer relationship with the EU, yes. Rejoin, no.
PR is not a magic pill. There are countries whose politicians are elected by PR and are well-governed. And there are some who are appallingly governed.
It’s all moot, as no Labour government would ever adopt PR.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
Electing the person with the most voters as your representative is not “wildly undemocratic”.
It's not wildly undemocratic, no, but electing the person with the most voters when voters only get to express one choice and you have single member constituencies, i.e. FPTP, does produce suboptimal results. One MP can be elected on 26% while another who gets 45% loses. A right wing candidate can beat a left wing candidate, unless a second right wing candidate stands, when the left-wing candidate wins, despite both of the right wing candidates being preferred to them by the voters. A party with a tiny amount of support that's geographically concentrated can win way more MPs than a party with a broad amount of support spread around the country.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
If you don't want to accept that proposition that you need to use reasonable judgment before firing your deadly weapons, then again good riddance to any officers who disarm themselves.
We mostly don't have an armed Police force in this country and we're better off for it. Any officers who are armed need to be taking that responsibility seriously, not acting like American cowboy police officers who feel that they are the law.
"Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge
Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.
The Lib Dems have long called for first past the post (FPTP) to be replaced with proportional representation (PR).
Vorderman said the current system fails to deliver parliaments that "properly reflect the will of the nation".
Coogan also backed the Lib Dems' campaign, and said "millions of people's voices go unheard".
Their pre-recorded video messages were screened at a party rally in Bournemouth."
The lib dem position on this appears to have evolved from holding a referendum, to simply a manifesto promise, followed by the vote of a coalition parliament. I do hope that's not just because they lost the last referendum on the topic.
Fine. Boris and Dom have shown the way. This is the new world. Get PR done.
Once proper PR (ie STV which is self-evidently the best all round system, not some AV shit) is in place nobody’s going to reverse it, because as a voting system it’s superior.
There seems to be an assumption, because its associated with the LibDems, that PR will lead to a flood of centrists entering parliament and a nice mushy consensus emerging at Westminster.
In fact, it's far more likely to facilitate the proliferation of populists and extremists, with all the consequences that flow from that. It's a perilous proposal which, in any event, is hardly a priority for many people beyond the self-interested political cadres promoting it.
It's almost certain to. If the electoral and party system were PR now, it's doubtful that Keir Starmer would be cruising into government. We'd have an AfD style party and a Corbynite left party representing serious blocs.
Yes PR is great for extremists and cranks, which makes it all the more ironic how many centrist dads back it.
One wonders why the Tory Party opposes it so vehemently, then?
FPTP is even better for extremists. They do not have to declare themselves. Corbyn was leader of the entire Labour Party, and the Conservatives, after they left the Pan European Conservative Peoples Party, were regarded by many EU conservatives as being very much in the same camp as the AfD or the RN. The policies of the current government are also well to the right of the UK political centre of gravity, and indeed, the previous Tory manifesto of 2019.
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
It's coalitions within parties vs coalitions between parties. I prefer the former, because the electorate has full information before the election. With PR, the governing coalition is decided after the election, without reference to the voters.
Under PR, parties are usually clear about what coalitions they would favour. Broadly, the voters vote knowing the outline of the governing coalition that will result. It's not some random process!
And, of course, with broad church parties, you might vote for the party expecting one faction within it to dominate, generally represented by the leader at the time, and then you get a quite different version of the party taking over. As when Johnson replaced May, or when Truss replaced Johnson, or when Sunak replaced Truss.
Would a PR system prevent the changing of PM without an election? Perhaps changing PM would make coalitions fall apart and different coalitions form with the new PM. That's as bad, surely?
I didn’t say that PR would prevent a change of PM. I’m just saying that the idea that you reliably get what you think you’re getting when you vote for a broad church party under FPTP is dubious.
Just watched an hour of Barbie, and then turned it off.
What a pile of shite.
I don't think you or I are the target market, but for a kids movie I found it quite fun and entertaining. Didn't take itself or Mattel too seriously either, so didn't come across as simply a marketing ploy.
My kids both really enjoyed it. We saw it at the cinema and then bought it on Amazon for them to rewatch whenever they want when it came out on streaming.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
Don't you think murder (for that is what the charge is) is a little more than "one error of judgement"?.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11h Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 4h Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
HS2 isn't uniformly popular in the red wall. More support near the terminals but views only range from indifference to opposition away from the stations.
Are you sure about that. HS2 doesn’t impact me at all but the inability for. Country to announce a big project and completely fail to deliver it would be a national embarrassment.
Much in the way that the Berlin tour guide last weekend made jokes about the airport…
Well I only saw stop HS2 signs in Killamarsh when the now nixed line was going to go through leading to the demolition essentially of Station Road and similar opposition when the Parklands horse equipment/feed store (Either Valley constituency) was under threat. Right now the whole project is in danger of turning into a high speed Brum Ealing link which wouldn't help anyone much.
The Aston to Acton Expressway.
One question. If it's not going to Euston did the Bree Louise pub have to die. I only went there once but it had a certain atmosphere
I never knew that pub! The boozers around there are almost universally awful - except for in my experience the Somers Town Coffee House (which is an alehouse, not a coffee house, although it probably does serve coffee these days)
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
I don’t think a mere sole error of judgement has ever led to a UK firearms officer spending the rest of their life in prison. A recent case has led to a murder charge, but let’s wait to see what evidence is presented in court before making presumptions.
Meanwhile, there are many other jobs where a single error of judgement can result in a death. Doctors. Nurses. Pilots. Anyone driving an emergency vehicle travelling at speed.
On HS2 I expect Hunt will announce any changes in his Autumn statement on the 22nd November and I suspect if it is the cancellation of the Manchester expansion then a considerable sum will be diverted to Northern rail developments
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
Mostly I agree with you in these topics, but here you are being harsh
The criteria on which armed officers’ actions are judged after the event have changed. They are no longer given the benefit of the doubt, and political considerations often tip the balance the other way. Given this uncertainty it is reasonable for an individual police officer to no longer wish to have the responsibility and personal risk of being armed.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
It isn't arrogant. They aren't walking away from the Met, they are just saying they don't want to be firearms officers. You should only do this job if you accept the proposition that one error of judgement can lead you spending the rest of your life in prison. I would guess it will be difficult to find competent people to do this work after these events.
The test for murder is much higher than a simple error of judgment. This is the test the CPS applies before deciding to charge -
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
The arrogance of this. We must not be subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else - even where there is evidence that one of us might have committed a crime.
And if we don't get our way we'll refuse to do something which may be necessary to keep safe the people we have pledged to serve.
Mostly I agree with you in these topics, but here you are being harsh
The criteria on which armed officers’ actions are judged after the event have changed. They are no longer given the benefit of the doubt, and political considerations often tip the balance the other way. Given this uncertainty it is reasonable for an individual police officer to no longer wish to have the responsibility and personal risk of being armed.
Considering many of the antics of the firearm squad of the Met, it is probably a good thing that they are handing in their weapons.
On HS2 I expect Hunt will announce any changes in his Autumn statement on the 22nd November and I suspect if it is the cancellation of the Manchester expansion then a considerable sum will be diverted to Northern rail developments
Comments
The opposition should simply frame it as the country not being able to afford it when there are other pressing needs . I think that’s the safest line .
League has always been a hyper local club game.
Internationals have never been important.
No League fan would put up with the sheer number of stoppages for injuries, scrums and kicks at goal.*
*I actually love rugby. Both Union and League. Played both to a very high youth standard, before injuries (and drugs, sex and booze got in the way).
Just find Union very frustrating.
Don't think Union fans in general realise why the average non-rugby punter won't think that was entertaining.
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
Golden Retriever
St Bernard
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/real-life/article-12342477/canine-behaviouralist-atherton-dogs-easy-train-gentle-golden-retriever-border-collie.html
But yet another example of the Mets institutional arrogance. And they wonder why the force is reviled by the rest of UK policing.
63% of voters also want to raise the threshold at which it is levied from £325k
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/our-news/press-releases/yougov-poll-shows-majority-support-raising-iht-threshold-above-325k-despite-eyewatering-public-finance-decisions-ahead
This will be in the Tory manifesto as a goodie for the bluewall in particular if they re elect the Tories
This programme needs to be signed off by Hunt, so why is he insisting there is 'no possibility of tax cuts' when he's happy to piss these sorts of sums up the wall at the Bank's behest?
John Redwood asks why.
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/09/23/tghe-bank-of-england-is-wrong-to-keep-selling-bonds-at-big-losses/
There is no reason he should get state apartments on tap now, if he wants to visit the UK he can get a hotel room like other US based tourists
Basically the whole policy area (housing) is in a mess with no answer. We are on the 16th housing minister since 2010.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
11h
Whatever the rights or wrongs of HS2, if Rishi Sunak scraps it that will become a symbol of Red Wall betrayal.
Rachel Wearmouth
@REWearmouth
·
4h
Sunak would be doing this while also pushing Blue Wall voters in the South towards the Lib Dems because of his net zero stance. As an electoral strategy, it’s not making much sense
PR may allow some nutters to be elected, but that is also true of FPTP.
The difference is that under PR the nutters are forced to declare themselves and be challenged and so most often they do not form the leadership of the government that emerges. After the past few years of utter chaos, it is futile to attempt to defend FPTP on any ground of national interest. It does not bring stability, it does not exclude extremists and it is wildly undemocratic. We still have to endure maybe another 15 months of this fiasco. At least a coalition would have fallen and given us new elections by now.
The fix on AV (not a PR system the Lib Dems ever supported) kicked the issue down the road a little, but the shambles we have been living through has utterly discredited FPTP and a change will inevitably come, and sooner than many think.
I'm shocked I tell you etc etc...
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
38m
TELEGRAPH: Axe looms over HS2 after £8bn cost shock #TomorrowsPapersToday
Build the fucking thing.
Build it with through trains to the great cities of continental Europe.
From the great cities of the English north. From Liverpool. From Manchester. From Sheffield. From Nottingham. From
Newcastle. From Leeds.
To Paris. To London. To Amsterdam. To Brussels.
Build it. And stopping fucking about.
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
1h
INDEPENDENT: Now Tory big beasts turn on PM’s ‘insane’ plan to scrap HS2 #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1705671328785719338
Excellent post.
What the feck are we thinking. Either build a high speed railway to europe from northern england or don't.
It's purely binary.
I think people only disagree with Gauke on decisions made by Conservative governments he was in.
Glen O'Hara
@gsoh31
·
10h
I'll say again: HS2 is **not** about the speed, it's about the capacity. You may not be able to get on a North-South train **anywhere** if you don't build it properly. This is such a disaster in the making.
It was PR which enabled her Brothers of Italy party to come to power. The Nazis also built a powerbase in Germany with PR
Though as it happens, I agree that inheritance tax should be abolished. Instead inheritance should be treated exactly the same as any other income, so liable in full to income tax (including of course NI) on the entire inheritance above personal allowance just the same as regular income is.
Kate Ferguson
@kateferguson4
EXCL - Fears are growing inside Downing Street for the health of beloved chief mouser Larry the cat
No10 officials drawing up emergency PR plan on how to break the news to the nation when the ailing moggy does pass away
If you don't want to do remedial work in your own home then you're the one liable to pay extra energy costs due to the home being draughty etc
If you don't want to do remedial work on someone else's home that you let out then you're leaving them liable to pay extra energy costs due to their home being draughty etc because of your neglect.
How you get a home you're letting upto habitable standards should be up to you, via a free market, but if you don't want to meet minimum standards then that's a problem.
Much in the way that the Berlin tour guide last weekend made jokes about the airport…
Edit to add - much like Berlin airport the added costs come from not allowing the finalised design to be completed as originally agreed
It should also be paid by everyone, on all income. It can be hypothecated all the way then, but everyone of every age should pay it on every income they make, not only employment-based income.
Hypothecation is fine. Insisting some pay while others don't is not.
Meloni is introducing a bill to make surrogacy by homosexual families illegal, Italy already being one of the few western nations without gay marriage now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66860266
She also takes a hard line on immigration, she is no Liz Truss other than also being for small government economically
The Lib Dems are losing votes to Labour
BBC News - John Curtice: Lib Dems are losing votes to Labour
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66902610
Of course, we already do have an AfD style party and more than one Corbynite left party. Indeed, the former, by which I mean UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform UK, have had huge impact on Britain under FPTP already, while RESPECT got an MP elected.
We can make estimates of what would happen to MP numbers under PR (LibDems, Greens, Reform UK and UUP up; SNP, PC, SF and DUP down). It might see more parties in the Commons through smaller parties winning seats or through new parties forming. But we don't know. We should judge the proposal not on guesses as to who might benefit but on whether the electoral system works better (recognising that is a much debated question).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66903485
Right now the whole project is in danger of turning into a high speed Brum Ealing link which wouldn't help anyone much.
It's taken me all evening to think of that.
The best being to build more houses.
Slumlords who don't want to invest in maintaining their buildings quality exiting the market doesn't reduce the quantity of buildings at all, if they sell up then someone else can buy it - whether that be a landlord that is prepared to invest in quality rather than being a slumlord, or Councils or housing associations buying to let out, or would-be owners buying so they don't need to rent anymore which is a reduction of one of houses available to let, and a reduction of one of families wanting to let, so a net change of zero in housing stock.
Of course, Australia does have PR (STV) for its second house. Canada keeps coming close to adopting PR, and parts of Canada were using STV around the mid-20th century. Support for PR is growing in India. Bits of the US have dumped FPTP.
It is becoming a national embarrassment.
Are you some sort of commie? Next you'll be wanting your house insulated or something. Not even Sir Kier wants that.
But building the London leg while cancelling both northern branches is just a big Fuck You to Northerners.
Levelling Up, my arse.
And every disco I get in
My heart is pumping for love
Pumping for love
"1970s Binmen | Weybridge | St George' Hill | What do the posh throw out? | A town called.. | 1975"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnhlj6rUhIE
And, of course, with broad church parties, you might vote for the party expecting one faction within it to dominate, generally represented by the leader at the time, and then you get a quite different version of the party taking over. As when Johnson replaced May, or when Truss replaced Johnson, or when Sunak replaced Truss.
God.
There's no helping some people.
Plus if you want to "level up" then linking places together, eg via motorways, rather than insisting everywhere connects to London actually does that.
But if you're going to spend all that money on HS2, then do it properly and build it in full, all the way through the North.
PR is not a magic pill. There are countries whose politicians are elected by PR and are well-governed. And there are some who are appallingly governed.
It’s all moot, as no Labour government would ever adopt PR.
"Do they have a good life?"
"yeh, bottles, loads of them, spirits, wine you name it. You can go in a house and bring out two whole bags of them."
We mostly don't have an armed Police force in this country and we're better off for it. Any officers who are armed need to be taking that responsibility seriously, not acting like American cowboy police officers who feel that they are the law.
My kids both really enjoyed it. We saw it at the cinema and then bought it on Amazon for them to rewatch whenever they want when it came out on streaming.
Meanwhile, there are many other jobs where a single error of judgement can result in a death. Doctors. Nurses. Pilots. Anyone driving an emergency vehicle travelling at speed.
The criteria on which armed officers’ actions are judged after the event have changed. They are no longer given the benefit of the doubt, and political considerations often tip the balance the other way. Given this uncertainty it is reasonable for an individual police officer to no longer wish to have the responsibility and personal risk of being armed.
Other than enriching themselves.
1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? If the answer is yes, then the next question is:
2. Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
What these officers are in effect saying is that the CPS should not apply this test.
Now I have quite a lot of sympathy for armed police officers having to make a split second decision about whether to shoot someone. There have been quite a few such shootings in recent years - in some cases in terrorist incidents as well as in ordinary crimes. But if the evidence for a murder charge is there, the police officers' argument seems to be that it should not be in the public interest for them to be prosecuted. And that means that those charged with implementing and upholding the law should, ipso facto, be excused from following the same laws as the rest of us.
That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/long-held-plans-two-new-26986599.amp