Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A prelude to the next general election? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,450
edited May 5 in General
A prelude to the next general election? – politicalbetting.com

The lowest winning vote share in the local elections was a mere 18.9%…Truro Moresk & Trehaverne (Cornwall) Result:? LDM: 18.9%?? RFM: 17.4%? CON: 17.0%? GRN: 14.1%? Ind: 13.3%? LAB: 11.4%? Ind: 7.9%

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,807
    edited May 5

    Battlebus said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Reuters

    The unofficial version of Signal used by Trump's former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has been hacked, tech site 404 Media said, raising further concern over the security of the communications exchanged at the highest levels of the US government

    https://x.com/Reuters/status/1919212962469847483

    Didn't Fascist Barbie state this was the most open government ever. What's the problem? ;)
    There is a serious issue behind the bullshit.

    Signal is, essentially, WhatsApp 2.0, created by ex-WhatsApp guys who used the money from selling WhatsApp to Farcebook to create what they regarded as the best chat messaging software.

    Singal is very, very secure. It features end to end encryption - the messages are not accessible to the people running Signal.

    Signal is also open source - both server code and the apps. This means that anyone can see and check for backdoors or vulnerabilities.

    Signal allow people to clone the code and create their own apps. You can create your own Signal clone app, and cloned server and setup your own, completely independent system.

    What TeleMessage (the company in the above story) did was to add a backdoor into their Signal clone. Effectively, a third party in every chat. This is supposed to be for storing the messages, unencrypted, but secured. This is how they were breached. The maths says that once you allow such a backdoor, it’s merely a matter of time.

    In the U.K. the government is trying to ban end to end encryption. They always want a back door. Just like TeleMessage had.

    Signal is talking about pulling out if the U.K. because of this.

    This is what happens when you have back doors. People break in.
    What is this TeleMessage business case for cloning the source and basically breaking the good thing about signal?
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889
    That's not an election result - that's a crapshoot with 7 sided dice..
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,325

    Battlebus said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Reuters

    The unofficial version of Signal used by Trump's former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has been hacked, tech site 404 Media said, raising further concern over the security of the communications exchanged at the highest levels of the US government

    https://x.com/Reuters/status/1919212962469847483

    Didn't Fascist Barbie state this was the most open government ever. What's the problem? ;)
    There is a serious issue behind the bullshit.

    Signal is, essentially, WhatsApp 2.0, created by ex-WhatsApp guys who used the money from selling WhatsApp to Farcebook to create what they regarded as the best chat messaging software.

    Singal is very, very secure. It features end to end encryption - the messages are not accessible to the people running Signal.

    Signal is also open source - both server code and the apps. This means that anyone can see and check for backdoors or vulnerabilities.

    Signal allow people to clone the code and create their own apps. You can create your own Signal clone app, and cloned server and setup your own, completely independent system.

    What TeleMessage (the company in the above story) did was to add a backdoor into their Signal clone. Effectively, a third party in every chat. This is supposed to be for storing the messages, unencrypted, but secured. This is how they were breached. The maths says that once you allow such a backdoor, it’s merely a matter of time.

    In the U.K. the government is trying to ban end to end encryption. They always want a back door. Just like TeleMessage had.

    Signal is talking about pulling out if the U.K. because of this.

    This is what happens when you have back doors. People break in.
    What is this TeleMessage business case for cloning the source and basically breaking the good thing about signal?
    The 'good thing about signal' that messages are gone forever means it can't be used by people who have a legal requirement to retain messages
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,904
    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889



    What is this TeleMessage business case for cloning the source and basically breaking the good thing about signal?

    You don't think an unknown permanent record of messages that people think are temporary isn't a great business model for blackmail or other reasons?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,031

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    A run off between the Lib Dem and the Reformer would be interesting.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    Scott_xP said:

    Battlebus said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Reuters

    The unofficial version of Signal used by Trump's former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has been hacked, tech site 404 Media said, raising further concern over the security of the communications exchanged at the highest levels of the US government

    https://x.com/Reuters/status/1919212962469847483

    Didn't Fascist Barbie state this was the most open government ever. What's the problem? ;)
    There is a serious issue behind the bullshit.

    Signal is, essentially, WhatsApp 2.0, created by ex-WhatsApp guys who used the money from selling WhatsApp to Farcebook to create what they regarded as the best chat messaging software.

    Singal is very, very secure. It features end to end encryption - the messages are not accessible to the people running Signal.

    Signal is also open source - both server code and the apps. This means that anyone can see and check for backdoors or vulnerabilities.

    Signal allow people to clone the code and create their own apps. You can create your own Signal clone app, and cloned server and setup your own, completely independent system.

    What TeleMessage (the company in the above story) did was to add a backdoor into their Signal clone. Effectively, a third party in every chat. This is supposed to be for storing the messages, unencrypted, but secured. This is how they were breached. The maths says that once you allow such a backdoor, it’s merely a matter of time.

    In the U.K. the government is trying to ban end to end encryption. They always want a back door. Just like TeleMessage had.

    Signal is talking about pulling out if the U.K. because of this.

    This is what happens when you have back doors. People break in.
    What is this TeleMessage business case for cloning the source and basically breaking the good thing about signal?
    The 'good thing about signal' that messages are gone forever means it can't be used by people who have a legal requirement to retain messages
    Signal can be set to return messages locally.

    You are right about the legal requirement - in finance, for example retention of all communications regarding various activities must be retained in a readable for for x years, in the U.K.

    Quite a lot of countries do similar and require the same for various industries.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,656
    Who held the seat previously?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,557

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    eek said:



    What is this TeleMessage business case for cloning the source and basically breaking the good thing about signal?

    You don't think an unknown permanent record of messages that people think are temporary isn't a great business model for blackmail or other reasons?
    Legal/compliance.

    Anything you do on a work computer/tablet/phone, you should regard as being recorded.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,807
    Worst kept secret in football....

    Trent Alexander-Arnold to announce Real Madrid move THIS MORNING
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,798

    Who held the seat previously?

    The Tories.

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,695

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
    And a side serving of Scottish subsamples please.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,807
    BBC News - Nationalist Simion wins first round of Romanian election rerun
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0zl1702ego
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    FF43 said:

    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system

    I have a system to replace it.

    1) It is FPTP & every single form of AV. It is perfectly proportional
    2) Fraud is impossible
    3) Vote counting is instant
    4) Voting is transparent.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,664

    FF43 said:

    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system

    I have a system to replace it.

    1) It is FPTP & every single form of AV. It is perfectly proportional
    2) Fraud is impossible
    3) Vote counting is instant
    4) Voting is transparent.
    You mean, Trump is Da Man and he gets Da Vote?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,721
    Scott_xP said:

    Battlebus said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Reuters

    The unofficial version of Signal used by Trump's former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has been hacked, tech site 404 Media said, raising further concern over the security of the communications exchanged at the highest levels of the US government

    https://x.com/Reuters/status/1919212962469847483

    Didn't Fascist Barbie state this was the most open government ever. What's the problem? ;)
    There is a serious issue behind the bullshit.

    Signal is, essentially, WhatsApp 2.0, created by ex-WhatsApp guys who used the money from selling WhatsApp to Farcebook to create what they regarded as the best chat messaging software.

    Singal is very, very secure. It features end to end encryption - the messages are not accessible to the people running Signal.

    Signal is also open source - both server code and the apps. This means that anyone can see and check for backdoors or vulnerabilities.

    Signal allow people to clone the code and create their own apps. You can create your own Signal clone app, and cloned server and setup your own, completely independent system.

    What TeleMessage (the company in the above story) did was to add a backdoor into their Signal clone. Effectively, a third party in every chat. This is supposed to be for storing the messages, unencrypted, but secured. This is how they were breached. The maths says that once you allow such a backdoor, it’s merely a matter of time.

    In the U.K. the government is trying to ban end to end encryption. They always want a back door. Just like TeleMessage had.

    Signal is talking about pulling out if the U.K. because of this.

    This is what happens when you have back doors. People break in.
    What is this TeleMessage business case for cloning the source and basically breaking the good thing about signal?
    The 'good thing about signal' that messages are gone forever means it can't be used by people who have a legal requirement to retain messages
    Until they do.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,551

    Worst kept secret in football....

    Trent Alexander-Arnold to announce Real Madrid move THIS MORNING

    Well he was rubbish yesterday
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,798

    Worst kept secret in football....

    Trent Alexander-Arnold to announce Real Madrid move THIS MORNING

    I've never rated him.

    Cannot defend and I cannot remember a single iconic moment involving him.

    Even though I knew this was coming but I am still in the denial phase.

    Sobs watching 'corner taken quickly' for the millionth time.

    I suspect he'll end up being like Michael Owen when he went to Real and ended up playing for Mickey Mouse clubs like Newcastle, Stoke, and Manchester United.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889
    edited May 5

    eek said:



    What is this TeleMessage business case for cloning the source and basically breaking the good thing about signal?

    You don't think an unknown permanent record of messages that people think are temporary isn't a great business model for blackmail or other reasons?
    Legal/compliance.

    Anything you do on a work computer/tablet/phone, you should regard as being recorded.
    I worked in a bank where my main task was ensuring all parts of transactions for 7+ years - that's not cheap
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,031
    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system

    I have a system to replace it.

    1) It is FPTP & every single form of AV. It is perfectly proportional
    2) Fraud is impossible
    3) Vote counting is instant
    4) Voting is transparent.
    The problem with one man one vote is there is a lot of us who want to be the man with the single vote..
    The position is taken by King Charles. Normalising him using his power to sack the PM would have a lot of political benefits.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,798

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
    I discussed AV in a thread on Saturday.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 728
    edited May 5

    Worst kept secret in football....

    Trent Alexander-Arnold to announce Real Madrid move THIS MORNING

    First one out the door and can you blame him. Wonder how many of the current squad will be there in September. It's never been a winning team....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,656

    Who held the seat previously?

    The Tories.

    And they dropped to third.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,833

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
    I discussed AV in a thread on Saturday.
    2011 referendum:

    No2AV 68%
    Yes2AV 32%

    :innocent:
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401

    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system

    I have a system to replace it.

    1) It is FPTP & every single form of AV. It is perfectly proportional
    2) Fraud is impossible
    3) Vote counting is instant
    4) Voting is transparent.
    The problem with one man one vote is there is a lot of us who want to be the man with the single vote..
    The position is taken by King Charles. Normalising him using his power to sack the PM would have a lot of political benefits.
    I always thought that we needed exit interviews for PMs

    The late Duke of Edinburgh would have been ideal for the job - “Phil, you have a hour to express yourself on the quality of politician. Don’t hold back. Say what you really think”.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,551

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    A conclave then
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,904

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
    I discussed AV in a thread on Saturday.
    Could we also say the Lib Dems are primus inter pares in Truro Moresk & Trehaverne?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    eek said:

    eek said:



    What is this TeleMessage business case for cloning the source and basically breaking the good thing about signal?

    You don't think an unknown permanent record of messages that people think are temporary isn't a great business model for blackmail or other reasons?
    Legal/compliance.

    Anything you do on a work computer/tablet/phone, you should regard as being recorded.
    I worked in a bank where my main task was ensuring all parts of transactions for 7+ years - that's not cheap
    Similar - one of the features of the system I built is that it keeps all transactions. Permanently. We have everything the bank has ever traded electronically.

    When we set up the system, we imported all the existing trades. This took a while, since the system found every mistake and unbalanced transaction, going back decades. This is because the system doesn’t just dumbly write to a table - it reconciles everything against everything else…
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
    I discussed AV in a thread on Saturday.
    2011 referendum:

    No2AV 68%
    Yes2AV 32%

    :innocent:
    And now we are in a position where AV is essential given that we are now in a world of 4/5 party rather than 2 party politics.

    Labour should be taking the result above and saying it’s not acceptable and implementing some form of AV asap.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,830
    (1/5)

    Reform bans the flying of Ukrainian flags (well all flags that aren’t the English or British ones).
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,381
    eek said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
    I discussed AV in a thread on Saturday.
    2011 referendum:

    No2AV 68%
    Yes2AV 32%

    :innocent:
    And now we are in a position where AV is essential given that we are now in a world of 4/5 party rather than 2 party politics.

    Labour should be taking the result above and saying it’s not acceptable and implementing some form of AV asap.
    If Labour want to change the voting system they’re free to run on it in their manifesto or hold a referendum. But given they did not campaign for it in 2024 then in my view they have absolutely zero democratic legitimacy for such a change.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,123
    FF43 said:

    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system

    Not quite. Yes, you get anomalies like this one, but attention should be focussed on the overall results of the system. On the whole FPTP is a system everyone understands and is the same for everyone; over time - we are currently in an unusual state of transition - the system will return to there being two broadly centrist camps with the common ground of all being the post WWII social democratic settlement - the bit that spends all the money both nationally and locally as Reform are about to find out.

    Currently there is a fight for one of the centrist camps. The Lab/LD camp is clear. Reform is in the other camp, with Tories split as to whether they are in the same camp as Reform or not. Once that is settled, either by splitting, integration, absorption or extinction of Tory and/or Reform we'll go back to normal.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system

    I have a system to replace it.

    1) It is FPTP & every single form of AV. It is perfectly proportional
    2) Fraud is impossible
    3) Vote counting is instant
    4) Voting is transparent.
    The problem with one man one vote is there is a lot of us who want to be the man with the single vote..
    All power corrupts, but someone must govern. So, reluctantly, I will climb to the top of the heap.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,664

    (1/5)

    Reform bans the flying of Ukrainian flags (well all flags that aren’t the English or British ones).

    Worldwide or just on the offices of councils they control?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,664
    eek said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
    I discussed AV in a thread on Saturday.
    2011 referendum:

    No2AV 68%
    Yes2AV 32%

    :innocent:
    And now we are in a position where AV is essential given that we are now in a world of 4/5 party rather than 2 party politics.

    Labour should be taking the result above and saying it’s not acceptable and implementing some form of AV asap.
    AV is a useless system.

    STV is the way to go, definitely for local and devolved elections (glares hard at his fellow Welsh) and probably for Westminster too.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    ydoethur said:

    (1/5)

    Reform bans the flying of Ukrainian flags (well all flags that aren’t the English or British ones).

    Worldwide or just on the offices of councils they control?
    This arm of the galaxy.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889
    Having emphasised that when in charge of Kent County Council they would stop the boats, Reform have now announced they can't actually do anything about it..

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9ekx3mz4yo
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,664

    ydoethur said:

    (1/5)

    Reform bans the flying of Ukrainian flags (well all flags that aren’t the English or British ones).

    Worldwide or just on the offices of councils they control?
    This arm of the galaxy.
    The Sour Milky Way?
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,830
    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
    I discussed AV in a thread on Saturday.
    2011 referendum:

    No2AV 68%
    Yes2AV 32%

    :innocent:
    And now we are in a position where AV is essential given that we are now in a world of 4/5 party rather than 2 party politics.

    Labour should be taking the result above and saying it’s not acceptable and implementing some form of AV asap.
    AV is a useless system.

    STV is the way to go, definitely for local and devolved elections (glares hard at his fellow Welsh) and probably for Westminster too.
    I really don't care what the system is - I was using AV for alternative voting system basically anything that will ensure the winner has a 50% or at least 33-40% of the vote. You can't govern when 81% of voters wanted someone else.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,123
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
    I discussed AV in a thread on Saturday.
    2011 referendum:

    No2AV 68%
    Yes2AV 32%

    :innocent:
    And now we are in a position where AV is essential given that we are now in a world of 4/5 party rather than 2 party politics.

    Labour should be taking the result above and saying it’s not acceptable and implementing some form of AV asap.
    AV is a useless system.

    STV is the way to go, definitely for local and devolved elections (glares hard at his fellow Welsh) and probably for Westminster too.
    AV is the only decent change available. Its merit is that allows a bit more space for well founded newbies to make progress, and a tiny bit more legitimacy to the individual winner, while being fairly simple and only a minor adjustment to to status quo.

    Its strong rejection not long ago suggests that anything more complicated will fail.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,721

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,387
    US tariffs of 100% on foreign film production will destroy the British film industry where over 80% of spending is foreign producers and most of that from the US.

    Imagine working in an industry where overnight Donald Trump can destroy your business, and do so for some ridiculous reason of national security.

    Right now the US is a bigger threat to UK wellbeing than bloody Russia.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,174

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,123

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    This isn't taking long. And it's a bank holiday. Will Reform look like all the others by the end of the month, and suggesting 2048 for the implementation of Dilnot?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,980

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Interview? Context? Link? Or are we just being treated to the contents of your brain?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,174
    I have a filthy cold. Why do I often get sick - colds - when I get BACK from a long period of travel

    Weird. It’s like my immune system works overtime for a few weeks in South America and Central Asia or wherever, keeping me well, but as soon as I head home it goes on strike
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,616
    eek said:

    Having emphasised that when in charge of Kent County Council they would stop the boats, Reform have now announced they can't actually do anything about it..

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9ekx3mz4yo

    Who do you think you are kidding, Mr. Farage? If you think Old Folkestone's done.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,115
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
    I discussed AV in a thread on Saturday.
    2011 referendum:

    No2AV 68%
    Yes2AV 32%

    :innocent:
    And now we are in a position where AV is essential given that we are now in a world of 4/5 party rather than 2 party politics.

    Labour should be taking the result above and saying it’s not acceptable and implementing some form of AV asap.
    AV is a useless system.

    STV is the way to go, definitely for local and devolved elections (glares hard at his fellow Welsh) and probably for Westminster too.
    Absolutely, or if we really want fun elections we could for the 1er / 2eme tour approach of France.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889
    edited May 5
    Leon said:

    I have a filthy cold. Why do I often get sick - colds - when I get BACK from a long period of travel

    Weird. It’s like my immune system works overtime for a few weeks in South America and Central Asia or wherever, keeping me well, but as soon as I head home it goes on strike

    You were working - you stop working and your immune system takes a break.

    On the other hand you landed 3 days ago which means you could have easily caught it on the plane (which after all s petri dish central) and the deadly disease you've caught is revealing the first symptoms.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,123
    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    Meanwhile a number of Reform voters in counties will expect little things to be run really well as a test of Reform's competence. Local authorities have plenty to do with their 1000 statutory duties. Reform, IIRC, plan to run the county management on a secretary who does shorthand and a part time cleaner who empties the bins as well so they will have an avalanche of cash to do it all.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,664
    On a serious note, changes to the voting system only happen when the party in power is convinced it is in its interests to do so.

    Therefore, if Labour continue to struggle we might see them put forward STV, AV or List PR for the next election. With their majority and the support of the Lib Dems (and presumably the SNP and Plaid as well, both of whom favour it) it would pass very easily. List PR would be the likeliest as it favours them most.

    But if they struggle badly, they'll want to hang on to FPTP as it will minimise their losses.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Interview? Context? Link? Or are we just being treated to the contents of your brain?
    this is as good as any https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9ekx3mz4yo
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,790

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    Can we have an AV thread sometime?
    I discussed AV in a thread on Saturday.
    And it was much appreciated.

    I'm waiting for the d'Hondt thread...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,174
    eek said:

    Leon said:

    I have a filthy cold. Why do I often get sick - colds - when I get BACK from a long period of travel

    Weird. It’s like my immune system works overtime for a few weeks in South America and Central Asia or wherever, keeping me well, but as soon as I head home it goes on strike

    You were working - you stop working and your immune system takes a break.

    On the other hand you landed 3 days ago which means you could have easily caught it on the plane (which after all s petri dish central) and the deadly disease you've caught is revealing the first symptoms.
    The internet agrees with you:


    “While you’re travelling, your body is running on elevated cortisol and adrenaline: keeping you sharp, alert, and resistant to minor infections. Once you’re home and safe, that stress hormone level drops, and with it, your immune vigilance softens. That’s when latent bugs (picked up on planes, trains, or from surfaces) finally take hold.”
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,031
    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,664

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    Medusa?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    edited May 5
    ydoethur said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    Medusa?
    That pun is off to a rocky start.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    Leon said:

    I have a filthy cold. Why do I often get sick - colds - when I get BACK from a long period of travel

    Weird. It’s like my immune system works overtime for a few weeks in South America and Central Asia or wherever, keeping me well, but as soon as I head home it goes on strike

    Eat fewer bats.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,616

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The cognitive dissonance on this subject is one day going to keep a whole generation of psychologists busy.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,836

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    course it will - 'always someone else's fault'
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,123

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,123
    Tres said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    course it will - 'always someone else's fault'
    I may be wrong, but I think the one thing Reform's voters won't accept from Reform is a load of excuses and blame shifting. This is not USA. Reform's support is transactional, not religious.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,465

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    Is the familiar sound the wet fart noise an mp makes when he realises the votes leant to him temporarily are even more transient than he thought?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,664

    ydoethur said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    Medusa?
    That pun is off to a rocky start.
    Immigration is Athena all the time with the far right.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,023

    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system

    I have a system to replace it.

    1) It is FPTP & every single form of AV. It is perfectly proportional
    2) Fraud is impossible
    3) Vote counting is instant
    4) Voting is transparent.
    The problem with one man one vote is there is a lot of us who want to be the man with the single vote..
    The position is taken by King Charles. Normalising him using his power to sack the PM would have a lot of political benefits.
    But it is the Archbishop of Canterbury who has to formally approve the King's successor. So the AoC is the man with the vote.
    I have been reading a book on the "Dark Ages" and sometimes it was literally a race between contenders to get to Canterbury first to claim the English throne.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,268
    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    course it will - 'always someone else's fault'
    I may be wrong, but I think the one thing Reform's voters won't accept from Reform is a load of excuses and blame shifting. This is not USA. Reform's support is transactional, not religious.
    Not yet , but we might well see the Reform Cult developing .
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,640
    ydoethur said:

    On a serious note, changes to the voting system only happen when the party in power is convinced it is in its interests to do so.

    Therefore, if Labour continue to struggle we might see them put forward STV, AV or List PR for the next election. With their majority and the support of the Lib Dems (and presumably the SNP and Plaid as well, both of whom favour it) it would pass very easily. List PR would be the likeliest as it favours them most.

    But if they struggle badly, they'll want to hang on to FPTP as it will minimise their losses.

    FPTP is a gamble, especially when four parties are winning 15-25% of the vote. Small shifts in vote share can deliver huge gains - or wipe you out.

    So do you gamble, in the hope of big winnings, or do you play safe, and switch to PR?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,465
    Thank goodness Labour don’t have these immigration luvvin types in charge any more.

    https://x.com/saulstaniforth/status/1919326522659295398?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,268

    Thank goodness Labour don’t have these immigration luvvin types in charge any more.

    https://x.com/saulstaniforth/status/1919326522659295398?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    That’s when Starmer still had some principles. Next he’ll be advocating leaving the ECHR .
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,640
    edited May 5
    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    course it will - 'always someone else's fault'
    I may be wrong, but I think the one thing Reform's voters won't accept from Reform is a load of excuses and blame shifting. This is not USA. Reform's support is transactional, not religious.
    Blame can be shifted (it worked for the SNP up till 2024, and has worked for Welsh Labour, hitherto), up till the point that Reform win an overall majority.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,904
    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system

    Not quite. Yes, you get anomalies like this one, but attention should be focussed on the overall results of the system. On the whole FPTP is a system everyone understands and is the same for everyone; over time - we are currently in an unusual state of transition - the system will return to there being two broadly centrist camps with the common ground of all being the post WWII social democratic settlement - the bit that spends all the money both nationally and locally as Reform are about to find out.

    Currently there is a fight for one of the centrist camps. The Lab/LD camp is clear. Reform is in the other camp, with Tories split as to whether they are in the same camp as Reform or not. Once that is settled, either by splitting, integration, absorption or extinction of Tory and/or Reform we'll go back to normal.
    People in serious democratic countries, almost all using PR, understand their voting systems too, so I don't think that's a good argument for FPTP. The argument, such as it was, for FPTP, was that it delivered a usefully clear result even it was only somewhat in line with how people voted. But that assertion doesn't hold any more.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,401
    edited May 5
    Roger said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    A conclave then
    Pope-picking starts Wednesday.

    To validly elect a new Pope, a two-thirds majority of the electors present is required.

    If the total number of electors is not evenly divisible by three, an additional vote is necessary.

    If voting begins on the afternoon of the first day, there will be only one ballot. On subsequent days, two ballots are held in the morning and two in the afternoon.

    After the votes are counted, all ballots are burned. If the ballot was inconclusive, a chimney positioned over the Sistine Chapel emits black smoke. If a Pope is elected, white smoke will billow out of the chimney.

    If the electors fail to reach an agreement on a candidate after three days of inconclusive voting, a break of up to one day is allowed for prayer, free discussion among voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation by the Cardinal Proto-Deacon (Cardinal Dominique Mamberti).

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-04/conclave-elect-new-pope-cardinals-beginning-date-may-2025.html
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,281

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,465
    nico67 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    course it will - 'always someone else's fault'
    I may be wrong, but I think the one thing Reform's voters won't accept from Reform is a load of excuses and blame shifting. This is not USA. Reform's support is transactional, not religious.
    Not yet , but we might well see the Reform Cult developing .
    I think mutating is the accurate term.
    See the second series of The Last Of Us.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 728
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    Meanwhile a number of Reform voters in counties will expect little things to be run really well as a test of Reform's competence. Local authorities have plenty to do with their 1000 statutory duties. Reform, IIRC, plan to run the county management on a secretary who does shorthand and a part time cleaner who empties the bins as well so they will have an avalanche of cash to do it all.
    Unless it's a cult.

    Some of us remember the UKIP councillors who sadly are no longer with us. They were a hoot.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,410
    Here's AfD MP Krah attending a far right conference in Serbia where people are calling for various eastern European countries to annex parts of Ukraine.

    https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/aussenpolitik/id_100695922/rechtsextreme-afd-verbuendete-wollen-in-der-ukraine-einmarschieren.html
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,281

    Addressing the concerns of the voters is not dancing to Reform's tune. It is addressing the concerns of the voters.

    And if Labour and Conservative had actually done this earlier, we wouldn't have Reform.

    There is a huge political bias to those concerns though. Labour/Lib Dem/Green have immigration as a much lower priority compared to health and the economy. It depends on whether Labour think they can win any Reform voters over - I don't think they can afford to try, given the risk of further alienating their GE '24 voters who have largely shifted to other left wing parties.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    edited May 5
    a
    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,031
    nico67 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    course it will - 'always someone else's fault'
    I may be wrong, but I think the one thing Reform's voters won't accept from Reform is a load of excuses and blame shifting. This is not USA. Reform's support is transactional, not religious.
    Not yet , but we might well see the Reform Cult developing .
    I can't see them implementing Sanctuary cities.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,174
    Sean_F said:

    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    course it will - 'always someone else's fault'
    I may be wrong, but I think the one thing Reform's voters won't accept from Reform is a load of excuses and blame shifting. This is not USA. Reform's support is transactional, not religious.
    Blame can be shifted (it worked for the SNP up till 2024, and has worked for Welsh Labour, hitherto), up till the point that Reform win an overall majority.
    Yes, the inability to understand this is quite strange, seeing as we have major examples of it in recent British history, as you say
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889
    edited May 5

    Addressing the concerns of the voters is not dancing to Reform's tune. It is addressing the concerns of the voters.

    And if Labour and Conservative had actually done this earlier, we wouldn't have Reform.

    reform is a subset of voters - and it's a subset of the have not voters who are seeking the impossible, which is a return to a world that never existed and could never exist (for it was the 1980s of their memory / imagination not the real 1980s). A world where their town / village was flourishing and where everyone had well paid jobs.

    And there is a big problem with that set of voters in that showing them reality isn't actually going to solve their problems it's just going to mean they move on to the next set of people they project their hope onto.


  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,123
    Sean_F said:

    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    course it will - 'always someone else's fault'
    I may be wrong, but I think the one thing Reform's voters won't accept from Reform is a load of excuses and blame shifting. This is not USA. Reform's support is transactional, not religious.
    Blame can be shifted (it worked for the SNP up till 2024, and has worked for Welsh Labour, hitherto), up till the point that Reform win an overall majority.
    I shall wait and see. Reform's voters are of the impatient sort, who have limited understanding of process and law. I think they will actually expect more than is within Reform's actual powers rather than less. Eg they will expect Reform Kent CC to stop Kent bound boats and to stick any arrivals in tents somewhere off South Georgia, and they will expect it this week.

    Remember the Brexit voters who assumed that we would leave the EU for all purposes immediately upon the vote.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,616
    For the more excitable Liberals:

    (1) Carney won in Canada because of nationalism, not in spite of it - Trump was directly threatening Canadian nationhood
    (2) Albanese won, again, because he was perceived as better able to stand up to Trump, and because he pledged not to stop the boats "turnback" policy.

    Neither election result should be seen as a crushing counterwave of progressivism.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,830
    (3/5)

    Reform is advertising working from home jobs now.

    Why?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,465
    Sean_F said:

    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    course it will - 'always someone else's fault'
    I may be wrong, but I think the one thing Reform's voters won't accept from Reform is a load of excuses and blame shifting. This is not USA. Reform's support is transactional, not religious.
    Blame can be shifted (it worked for the SNP up till 2024, and has worked for Welsh Labour, hitherto), up till the point that Reform win an overall majority.
    Bloomin’ disgraceful the way the SNP tried to shift the blame for Brexit and Boris. Next they’ll be refusing to take responsibility for the resistible rise of Arturo Farage.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,653

    For the more excitable Liberals:

    (1) Carney won in Canada because of nationalism, not in spite of it - Trump was directly threatening Canadian nationhood
    (2) Albanese won, again, because he was perceived as better able to stand up to Trump, and because he pledged not to stop the boats "turnback" policy.

    Neither election result should be seen as a crushing counterwave of progressivism.

    A rejection of Trumpism good enough for now. The space for a moderate conservatism seems to have disappeared - so the worry for me was we would end up with Trump-imitations taking over everywhere.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,281
    edited May 5

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,286
    With three parties over 20% in polls and another two potentially on 10 to 15% the party with most seats could certainly get under 30% of the national vote
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,476

    Roger said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    A conclave then
    Pope-picking starts Wednesday.

    To validly elect a new Pope, a two-thirds majority of the electors present is required.

    If the total number of electors is not evenly divisible by three, an additional vote is necessary.

    If voting begins on the afternoon of the first day, there will be only one ballot. On subsequent days, two ballots are held in the morning and two in the afternoon.

    After the votes are counted, all ballots are burned. If the ballot was inconclusive, a chimney positioned over the Sistine Chapel emits black smoke. If a Pope is elected, white smoke will billow out of the chimney.

    If the electors fail to reach an agreement on a candidate after three days of inconclusive voting, a break of up to one day is allowed for prayer, free discussion among voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation by the Cardinal Proto-Deacon (Cardinal Dominique Mamberti).

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-04/conclave-elect-new-pope-cardinals-beginning-date-may-2025.html
    Pope pickers? Do they do arrive at the conclave to the Alan "Fluff" Freeman music?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,401

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    So under your plan, anyone reporting every single Deliveroo rider will get indefinite leave to remain and at least £50,000 cash provided at least one rider is here illegally. You'll have them breeding pythons next.

    The only problem might be persuading Rachel to employ enough civil servants to check all these mostly spurious reports.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,023
    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    But you need 1950s levels of taxation to actually fix Britain's problems.
  • edited May 5
    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    What goes round comes around. It was quite common in the eighteenth century to pay 50% of the proceeds to the informant.

    A famous one was the 1757 Marriage Act and it explicitly said the informant who informed of an irregular or clandestine marriage could have 50%. Unfortunately elsewhere in the Act it extablished that the punishment was up to 7 years transportation !
Sign In or Register to comment.