Well, I never expected Carol Vorderman’s arsehole to be a topic on the Today programme, but we are where we are. Many marmalade-infused toast crumbs expelled across the nation I imagine.
Kenyon's comments on abortion also show that typical high regard for "protecting our women and girls so typical of the far right.
Kenyon strikes me as being a fairly uncommendable piece of work, but lots of good people who don't speak in inarticulate gibberish also have difficulties with the current state of abortion law and practice for the simple reason that we think the unborn have more rights than they are currently granted.
Does he strike you as forming his opinions from deep routed Christian belief, or rather far-right misogyny imported from US dominated Social Media?
Even if it were, do you think his claim that women falsly claim rape in order to get abortions? That may happen in some US states, but why would it be done here when we effectively have abortion by request?
IF we moved to PR for local elections, it wouldn't make much difference.
At Westminster, however, we'd have, as we see in other countries, a period of interregnum between Government formation. Denmark voted on 24th March - two months on, they still don't have a new Government.
I remember the almost panic in 2010 when we went without a Government for four days - imagine four weeks or four months with the previous PM in a caretaker capacity.We are used to the instant certainty of rapid change - within 12-18 hours of the end of polling, we have a new Prime Minister and Government.
That's an advantage of the current system - we wouldn't have paralysis without a Government - we'd have the good old tradition of paralysis with a Government.
Good morning all; fine and bright again. Why am I sitting indoors looking at a computer screen?
On topic the current situation in Denmark isn't unique in Modern Europe; remember Belgium a few years ago. Took well over a year to form a Government. And, I think the consensus was that no-one really worried too much!
Belgium of course does have an 'ethnic split' which complicated things considerably. I don't know enough about Belgian history to understand why the Flemings didn't stay with the Dutch when Belgium split away.
There is quite a cultural difference between Flemings and the Dutch, religion for a start. Partly formed from a much longer period of Spanish and later Austrian colonialism. Belgium didn't split from NL, it failed to liberate itself from the Spanish in the 80 years War. In any case the original independent Belgium was Walloon-dominated (hence Flemish chippiness) and supported by other powers to weaken the French.
In a any case, Belgium is virtually two countries, it doesn't really matter too much who runs the national government
NHS privatisation continues under Labour. Nixon to China?
This is down to the age old problem that spending on increased, long term capabilities in the NHS always takes second fiddle to spending on “the front line”
Which is why we spend a zillion on “agency” staffing. When a rational analysis would show that increasing permanent staff is cheaper. But that would take longer.
Increasing the whole “supply chain” for X Ray, MRI - machines, people to run them, people to analyse results - permanently in the NHS would probably save money in the medium term. Faster diagnosis leads to earlier treatment. Which is nearly always cheaper.
But instead we have hired trucks in car parks…
It also leads to highly trained clinical staff having to spend their expensive time doing admin work that could easily be done by secretarial staff - a major bugbear of my missus.
Increasingly I am told that trainees often exit NHS training to work for these outsourcing companies. Much less admin, no on call, better pay, work from home. What's not to like?
It is hollowing out the whole system, and increasingly hard to cover on call rotas in areas like Radiology. Who wants to be reporting urgent MRI on acute stroke cases or acute abdomens at midnight on a Bank Holiday weekend rather than a 3 day week zipping through routine scans?
That's sad. I didn't, generally mind being on-call as a pharmacist. Sometimes, if busy, I felt it demonstrated the need for longer regular hours.
"In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.
If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.
Putting it in the manifesto and then delivering it after avoids another dreaded referendum. But there’s nothing to stop Burnham committing to align local government to the same STV system already used in Scotland, sooner, which could be done very quickly.
Burnham (assuming he threads the needle to pm) making a clear commitment to electoral reform then actually following through on it would be a clear break with the modus operandi of Starmerism.
Why would he do that when he can win a solid majority under FPTP?
Because he thinks it would be good for the country?
That's rather touching.
Yes and no. Most dispassionate observers can see that our voting system is no longer fit for purpose - and no longer delivering against what most would agree was its original purpose - and as someone who’s been outside the Westminster system for a while, Burnham likely sees that clearer than most MPs. And comes from a party inside which there’s long been majority support for PR amongst the membership. Plus he as a track record of working with politicians of other parties across Greater Manchester, which few MPs will have, and understands the strengths of political systems based on co-operation and compromise rather than the often futile adversarial system we have in Parliament.
Not convinced. What is the original purpose of everyone having a vote? And what counts as a good outcome now?
What about this: When people vote they vote in favour of a thing - let us say in favour of a Starmer led Labour government because all the alternatives are worse. Ditto Reform voters are voting in favour of a quite distinct thing, not some diluted thing.
We are not collectively, because we are not individually, voting for 20% of thing X and 24% of thing Y and 5% of lunatic thing Z like in Israel. We are voting for the best available government, and (increasingly) to prevent lunatic thing Z, and we are voting for a specific individual to be 100% our representative whether as part of governing or not.
IMHO straight FPTP achieves this mostly, AV achieves it better and PR does it worse.
You can't have a government which to the degree of 25% acts in favour of nationalist white ethnocentricity and 75% doesn't. At least I hope you can't.
I grew up in Denmark so I'm very familiar with their system - it works pretty well most of the time, with two clear blocs indicating which coalition will be put into power, and five or so parties offering nuances in that, e.g. more or less direct taxation or investment in schools. To my mind it's much fairer than AV, which is I think largely unknown outside the English-speaking countries, but it does defer detailed coalition-building to after the election. Arguably that reflects most people's interest in politics - it gives the chance to express a definite positive preference (right down to 2% of the vote) while leaving the details to the parties to work out. Where you have parties who might side with either bloc it complicates matters, but that does reflect popular opinion if there's no clear preference.
As a former MP I'm familiar with the argument that one's elected on the basis of personal qualities. It's true to a limit of maybe 10% of the electorate - most of the remainder don't have a clear view that candidate X is better than Y, and a significant proportion couldn't tell you who X and Y were.
The trouble with AV - which I acknowledge is what we'd get in Britain - is a clear bias to the centre parties, beyond that relfecting actual support for them. That works if politics is a smooth left-right axis, but in reality there are numerous dimensions, with the nominally centre parties out on one extreme (e.g. the LibDem preference for rejoining the EU as quickly as possible). Nonetheless, AV does give a fairer reflection of what most voters want. And let's be honest - most of the time one vote isn't going to decide anything - it's a general impression that counts.
IF we moved to PR for local elections, it wouldn't make much difference.
At Westminster, however, we'd have, as we see in other countries, a period of interregnum between Government formation. Denmark voted on 24th March - two months on, they still don't have a new Government.
I remember the almost panic in 2010 when we went without a Government for four days - imagine four weeks or four months with the previous PM in a caretaker capacity.We are used to the instant certainty of rapid change - within 12-18 hours of the end of polling, we have a new Prime Minister and Government.
That's an advantage of the current system - we wouldn't have paralysis without a Government - we'd have the good old tradition of paralysis with a Government.
Good morning all; fine and bright again. Why am I sitting indoors looking at a computer screen?
On topic the current situation in Denmark isn't unique in Modern Europe; remember Belgium a few years ago. Took well over a year to form a Government. And, I think the consensus was that no-one really worried too much!
Belgium of course does have an 'ethnic split' which complicated things considerably. I don't know enough about Belgian history to understand why the Flemings didn't stay with the Dutch when Belgium split away.
There is quite a cultural difference between Flemings and the Dutch, religion for a start. Partly formed from a much longer period of Spanish and later Austrian colonialism. Belgium didn't split from NL, it failed to liberate itself from the Spanish in the 80 years War. In any case the original independent Belgium was Walloon-dominated (hence Flemish chippiness) and supported by other powers to weaken the French.
In a any case, Belgium is virtually two countries, it doesn't really matter too much who runs the national government
Obliged for the information. Clearly I shall have to have a further read.
I'll be honest and say that I used to prefer FPTP as it led to stable, majority government even when Labour or the Tories did not have an actual majority of votes. But recent times, and in my eyes the success of 2010-2015 have persuaded me that PR in some form would not be the end of the world.
I agree with you regarding the relative success of the Coalition (although Defence/court underfunding was a serious problem). However, my fear with PR is that it will only accelerate political fragmentation to no good effect.
The good effect is that it will make majority governments impossible on say 30% of the vote (ie 70% oppose).
That is not only unfair and undemocratic, it causes the population to lose faith in politics and want to smash it.
PR just exposes the chance of coalitions forming where parties with limited and highly localised support can become kingmakers. Our parliament is supposed to be adversarial, it is supposed to be formed of (broadly) a government and an opposition. The coalition building is supposed to be done up-front with the parties presenting the resultant manifesto to the voting public, the government then formed by the party who can gain enough support to form a majority. PR reverses that process, coalitions are formed after the vote and a program for government cobbled together by backroom deals the result of which nobody voted explicitly endorsed.
Funny, I seem to remember a coalition formed after a vote and a program for government cobbled together by backroom deals in a recent UK election. I believe some PBers even call it the best govennment of recent times.
And the 2010 coalition rather proves the point.
The Lib Dems had to abandon one of their signature manifesto commitments on tuition fees as part of coalition negotiations and were then electorally annihilated for it afterwards.
That is precisely the problem with post-election coalition bargaining. Parties campaign on one programme, then negotiate a different one after the votes are counted.
Under FPTP that tends to happen only in exceptional circumstances. Under PR it becomes the normal method of constructing governments.
A couple of counter-points.
The voters were able to punish the Lib Dems for breaking their promises at the next election. This is just as true with a coalition as with a majority government, not all of which hold to their promises.
Secondly, I don't think the Lib Dems had to abandon their signature manifesto commitment. They chose to trade it for other things in the coalition agreement. Parties might be more careful about which promises they get their candidates to sign pledges on in future, if they're not going to prioritise them in coalition negotiations.
This often comes up in pre-election debates in countries like Ireland where coalition negotiations are normal, particularly so in Ireland where, under STV, most parties don't stand enough candidates to form a majority government, even were they to unexpectedly receive a majority of the votes.
NHS privatisation continues under Labour. Nixon to China?
This is down to the age old problem that spending on increased, long term capabilities in the NHS always takes second fiddle to spending on “the front line”
Which is why we spend a zillion on “agency” staffing. When a rational analysis would show that increasing permanent staff is cheaper. But that would take longer.
Increasing the whole “supply chain” for X Ray, MRI - machines, people to run them, people to analyse results - permanently in the NHS would probably save money in the medium term. Faster diagnosis leads to earlier treatment. Which is nearly always cheaper.
But instead we have hired trucks in car parks…
It also leads to highly trained clinical staff having to spend their expensive time doing admin work that could easily be done by secretarial staff - a major bugbear of my missus.
That one of the classics of productivity improvement - take all but basic admin away from skilled staff.
I am PR-sceptical but spend almost no time thinking about it and don't know my D'Hondt from my STV.
But note that the LibDems spend very little time campaigning for Reform to be recognised as the third-largest party in the Commons after the 2024 election gave Reform half a million more votes but 70 fewer seats than Ed Davey's motley crew. Self-interest is often masked as principle.
Lib Dems have long been supportive of PR, even when doing well with FPTP. It is Reform that are the hypocrites, they used to favour it but now have changed their mind.
Farage hasn't come out against PR, he just said he was focused on abuse of postal votes first.
Though PR would rule out a Reform majority and mean they would almost always need to do a deal with the Tories to have a chance of power
The Reform activists that I have spoken with are very opposed to PR. "Why would we?"
Farage is too canny an operator to explicitly oppose PR but in power, he would.
As well as offering the prospect of spells in majority power, one of the other advantages of FPTP for the main parties has always been that, even in their unpopular low spots when they’re being thrown out of office, they’d always hang onto a decent haul of seats and most of their key players, sitting nicely in their safe spots, would never be under any meaningful threat from the electorate (a fault many - correctly - criticise list systems for, yet it’s historically also been a feature of ours).
Those features are fast disappearing - indeed the Tories only just avoided a real wipe out last time. Labours recent poll ratings could similarly deliver losses of hundreds of seats, and an unpopular Reform government would be in the same position, not having very many genuinely entrenched areas of deep support. Farage himself may well only be interested in the next few years but, if they do well, there will be others around him more interested in the longer view.
The biggest beneficiaries of PR now would be the Tories and Greens, not Reform or Labour nor even the LDs who in 2024 got almost the same number of MPs as a percentage of the Commons as their UK voteshare. PR would also help unionist parties in Scotland as with FPTP now the SNP would likely again win a majority of Scottish MPs
The biggest beneficiaries of PR would be the voters, who could vote more honestly for their beliefs, rather than forced to decide between voting "tactically" ( i.e. dishonestly) against someone, target than for someone, based on guessing how other people in their area will vote.
If Burnham wins convincingly and then oversees Labour doing well, my view that the heart of Labour's issues is poor communication, will be proved correct.
NHS privatisation continues under Labour. Nixon to China?
This is down to the age old problem that spending on increased, long term capabilities in the NHS always takes second fiddle to spending on “the front line”
Which is why we spend a zillion on “agency” staffing. When a rational analysis would show that increasing permanent staff is cheaper. But that would take longer.
Increasing the whole “supply chain” for X Ray, MRI - machines, people to run them, people to analyse results - permanently in the NHS would probably save money in the medium term. Faster diagnosis leads to earlier treatment. Which is nearly always cheaper.
But instead we have hired trucks in car parks…
It also leads to highly trained clinical staff having to spend their expensive time doing admin work that could easily be done by secretarial staff - a major bugbear of my missus.
That one of the classics of productivity improvement - take all but basic admin away from skilled staff.
Yet every Health Secretary or wannabee proclaims the importance of cutting back office staff. Ignoring the fact that they and the DoH are back office staff...
Peter Murrell has pleaded guilty to charges of embezzling more than £400,000 from the SNP over a period of 12 years in what the judge called a “gross breach of trust”.
The former SNP chief executive was remanded in custody to await sentencing.
I'll be honest and say that I used to prefer FPTP as it led to stable, majority government even when Labour or the Tories did not have an actual majority of votes. But recent times, and in my eyes the success of 2010-2015 have persuaded me that PR in some form would not be the end of the world.
There's a reasonable case to be made that FPTP put the correct party in office during the post-War period, and most of the time it was better than the Inbetweeners weren't kingmakers.
But now we have five/six parties with national profile (and that's not going back in the box, I suspect), it becomes a crapshoot. And the one thing an electoral system shouldn't be is a crapshoot.
I disagree with the first part.
FPTP cements establishments of both fight and left in place. Over the long term, I think that makes for bad policy. It suppresses the political expression of those dissatified with the status quo. And when the duopoly finally cracks, it tends to lead to more chaotic outcomes.
Or it occasionally puts a dissatified minority in majority power, with equally chaotic potential (see Trump's US).
And, for the voter, increasingly forces us to consider who we hate the most, and then find someone a bit less hateful who stands a chance of winning to vote for. Which leads parties to campaign mostly on the negatives of their opponents rather than advancing a positive agenda and denies voters who want their vote to count from being able to vote positively for the party they prefer.
I strongly agree with that.
As a general point, electoral systems don't determine our politics, and aren't panaceas (see again the Israel example), but they all place constraints on its expression at the ballot box. As you say, PR places fewer constraints on actually voting for what you want.
One of the things you have to decide is what voting and politics is for. I think politics is primarily a way to peacefully manage the disagreements we have as a society. So it needs to reflect the principal groups in society to manage those disagreements.
When it was a question of being on the side of the King's power, or Parliament's, well, you only needed two parties. Similarly when the main interest groups in society were three urban middle class and the landed gentry, or the working class and the representatives of capital.
But British politics is more complicated now. It needs five parties represented in the Commons (plus the Nats), so that they can sort out disagreements in the open, in Parliament.
Well, I never expected Carol Vorderman’s arsehole to be a topic on the Today programme, but we are where we are. Many marmalade-infused toast crumbs expelled across the nation I imagine.
Kenyon's comments on abortion also show that typical high regard for "protecting our women and girls so typical of the far right.
Kenyon strikes me as being a fairly uncommendable piece of work, but lots of good people who don't speak in inarticulate gibberish also have difficulties with the current state of abortion law and practice for the simple reason that we think the unborn have more rights than they are currently granted.
Does he strike you as forming his opinions from deep routed Christian belief, or rather far-right misogyny imported from US dominated Social Media?
Even if it were, do you think his claim that women falsly claim rape in order to get abortions? That may happen in some US states, but why would it be done here when we effectively have abortion by request?
Christian belief?: No. Misogyny?: Yes. Rape claim?: No. Why do it here?: Agree with you.
IF we moved to PR for local elections, it wouldn't make much difference.
At Westminster, however, we'd have, as we see in other countries, a period of interregnum between Government formation. Denmark voted on 24th March - two months on, they still don't have a new Government.
I remember the almost panic in 2010 when we went without a Government for four days - imagine four weeks or four months with the previous PM in a caretaker capacity.We are used to the instant certainty of rapid change - within 12-18 hours of the end of polling, we have a new Prime Minister and Government.
That's an advantage of the current system - we wouldn't have paralysis without a Government - we'd have the good old tradition of paralysis with a Government.
I broadly agree.
Some form of PR, or even full PR via party lists, for local elections actually makes a fair amount of sense. Local government is structurally much better suited to consensus and coalition politics anyway.
It just does not scale naturally to Westminster as it is currently structured and organised.
Westminster still operates culturally and procedurally on the assumption that:
one party governs one party opposes manifestos are quasi-contractual governments are expected to implement a coherent programme elections are mechanisms for choosing executives, not simply representative assemblies
Trying to graft permanent coalition politics onto that system without wider constitutional redesign could easily create instability and voter confusion rather than greater legitimacy.
Constitutional systems are ecosystems. Electoral systems cannot really be analysed in isolation from the institutions and political culture around them.
I don't see why local government is different to Westminster.
NHS privatisation continues under Labour. Nixon to China?
This is down to the age old problem that spending on increased, long term capabilities in the NHS always takes second fiddle to spending on “the front line”
Which is why we spend a zillion on “agency” staffing. When a rational analysis would show that increasing permanent staff is cheaper. But that would take longer.
Increasing the whole “supply chain” for X Ray, MRI - machines, people to run them, people to analyse results - permanently in the NHS would probably save money in the medium term. Faster diagnosis leads to earlier treatment. Which is nearly always cheaper.
But instead we have hired trucks in car parks…
It also leads to highly trained clinical staff having to spend their expensive time doing admin work that could easily be done by secretarial staff - a major bugbear of my missus.
Increasingly I am told that trainees often exit NHS training to work for these outsourcing companies. Much less admin, no on call, better pay, work from home. What's not to like?
It is hollowing out the whole system, and increasingly hard to cover on call rotas in areas like Radiology. Who wants to be reporting urgent MRI on acute stroke cases or acute abdomens at midnight on a Bank Holiday weekend rather than a 3 day week zipping through routine scans?
That's a fairly neat description of the difference between earning a living and following a vocation.
Although a Labour supporter I think the GE24 outcome is an argument against FPTP. A huge majority on a third of the vote created a false impression - that the country had voted for and was now desperate for a specifically Labour change. The fabled Change That People Voted For that Labour politicians keep chuntering about.
There was no such thing. The only CTPVF for was to kick out the Tories. This is what united three quarters of the electorate. The phrase makes sense only in that context and that Change was duly delivered on the morning after the election. As for change beyond that, there is no popular consensus whatsoever. This is well demonstrated on here. What some people want many others find foolish or repellent.
The effect of this, a large majority on a small vote, has been to set up the government to fail. The criticisms of 'no plan' and 'useless Starmer' aren't wholly unfair, I'm not saying that, but the warped GE result and the consequent clash of expectations vs political reality and the mislabelling and exaggeration of the mandate has certainly contributed to the problem.
IF we moved to PR for local elections, it wouldn't make much difference.
At Westminster, however, we'd have, as we see in other countries, a period of interregnum between Government formation. Denmark voted on 24th March - two months on, they still don't have a new Government.
I remember the almost panic in 2010 when we went without a Government for four days - imagine four weeks or four months with the previous PM in a caretaker capacity.We are used to the instant certainty of rapid change - within 12-18 hours of the end of polling, we have a new Prime Minister and Government.
That's an advantage of the current system - we wouldn't have paralysis without a Government - we'd have the good old tradition of paralysis with a Government.
I broadly agree.
Some form of PR, or even full PR via party lists, for local elections actually makes a fair amount of sense. Local government is structurally much better suited to consensus and coalition politics anyway.
It just does not scale naturally to Westminster as it is currently structured and organised.
Westminster still operates culturally and procedurally on the assumption that:
one party governs one party opposes manifestos are quasi-contractual governments are expected to implement a coherent programme elections are mechanisms for choosing executives, not simply representative assemblies
Trying to graft permanent coalition politics onto that system without wider constitutional redesign could easily create instability and voter confusion rather than greater legitimacy.
Constitutional systems are ecosystems. Electoral systems cannot really be analysed in isolation from the institutions and political culture around them.
I don't see why local government is different to Westminster.
Because Westminster is not simply a representative chamber. It is also the mechanism by which the national executive is created and sustained.
Local government does not carry the same constitutional role, political expectations or concentration of sovereign authority.
That distinction matters because different electoral systems optimise for different things. PR systems tend to prioritise representational fairness and negotiated consensus, whereas Westminster historically prioritised decisive executive formation and clear electoral accountability.
You can absolutely argue the latter model should change, but that is a broader constitutional argument than simply “PR is fairer”.
Thank you for the link, which I found interesting. Unfortunately I can't handle arguments like his, which are as follows:
i) This is the poll and it says this
ii) It makes these assumptions (lists them)
iii) Kellner think those assumptions are wrong
iv) Kellner think those assumptions should be this instead (lists new assumptions)
v) That makes the poll say this instead
I understand the argument, it's perfectly logical, but how in the name of goodness can I check it? Even for plausibility?
Good points. My post was a betting post! So the matter is more like assessing form in racing or football. There is no definitive answer to what weight to give to what factor, argument or assumption until after the race. This is betting, not science. I conclude from Kellner - who I think is an honest appraiser though I am sure he has political biases - that more weight should be given to the chance of a Labour win than the single poll suggests. (The poll itself taken on its own says that 47% propose to vote far right and 43% Labour, and other parties are squeezed out of sight. This looks very like a Reform win, given recent local results and the possibility of shy Reformers.)
This may make Labour value at current odds, though for now I have not jumped in.
No AC here. Won't be in the office much longer. With a feels like 33C, this sun-trap small room will end up high 30s... I do loathe summer.
Get outside and enjoy it while it lasts.
I am sitting in pleasant dappled shade watching the bees on my containers, and recuperating from yesterdays departmental outing. We have the tradition of a May Bank Holiday departmental hike, and yesterday was quite a scorcher as everyone in the Midlands and North were out doing the same in the Peaks. Two observations:
1) Few people are more beautiful from the additions of tattoos, particulary on neck or breasts.
2) Bank Holiday hikers are amazingly multicultural, with all ethnicities, ages and fitness levels on show, from sporty fell runners in lycra, Muslims and Sikhs in flowing robes, young Black guys in hoodies, to pensioners with flat cap and walking sticks, dog lovers, WWC Brummies with shirts off, East European familes. All out having a good time. Who says we can't all be British and integrate in the things that matter?
An extraordinary moment indeed. After reading her autobiography I'm quite a fan. It was very readable and she's clearly talented. He was little mentioned which I suppose makes sense and she has her haters. My Scottish relatives seemed angry that I'd even read the book let alone liked it
A Bank Holiday and a debate on voting systems, what more could a red-blooded Englishman want?
As a long time member and supporter of the Lib Dems, I've always been opposed to what I regard as the inequity of FPTP and I've cited examples such as Newham, Sutton and other places in the past where one party states exist on relatively low vote shares.
My ideal would be true proportionality - 20% of the vote equals 20% of the seats but that will never happen.
As to what might work, STV for LOCAL elections looks a good place to start. In Richmond, the LDs won 100% of the seats on 51.5% of the vote - that means the 48.5% who voted for other parties have no voice at all - that can' t be right. On the vote shares, the LDs would have majority control but there would be a strong opposition and I'm a believer in plural democracy with as many voices as possible represented and included.
In Newham, the 19% who voted Reform, Conservative, LD or CPA got nothing while the 81% who voted Labour, NIP and Greens got 100% of the seats which is also wrong.
Representative plural democracy can't just be a meaningless aspiration - it has to be something which we can all see would encourage voter participation, engagement and turnout.
As for Westminster elections, I remain to be convinced. The link between the MP and the constituency is important and the MP does speak for all constituents irrespective of how they voted and represents them all in the same way.
Except there are so many counterexample of MPs who don't give much of a damn about their co stunts that it's an exceedingly poor argument for FPTP.
Why couldn't he have done that months ago - at least before the elections?
Ah.
In the very distinct circumstances there could easily be a deal whereby it was noted by the prosecution that he was going to plead guilty, for the purposes of sentence reduction, but for reasons of political fairness the plea was not taken in open court until now.
The people of Scotland will surely wonder if corruption in the snp leaves itself at the gate of party and not flow into government
During Murrell’s time as Chief Executive, and Sturgeon’s time as party leader, SNP decision making was steadily taken away from the membership and centralised at HQ. Those that objected were sidelined. Now we know why.
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the wall, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
In NYC, every building just has an AC in the window, I am not sure why we don't allow that here.
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
Our Air Source Heat Pump has a cooling mode and is now pumping water at 16°C through our floor, which is keeping the house nice and cool. Most ASHPs have that option now.
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
In NYC, every building just has an AC in the window, I am not sure why we don't allow that here.
The reason for no A/C is regulations stating that passive cooling must be used (unless absolutely impossible)
These came from the time that energy efficiency was being pushed, without considering the energy source.
In turn this means having complex geometries for flats - multiple aspects - more expensive and lower density.
Would Israeli politics be wildly different if they changed their electoral system ? I doubt it.
Would ours be if "Tommy" Yaxley-Lennon held 8 seats - and the balance of power?
For him to hold the balance of power would imply that both the alternative blocks would rather do a deal with him than any party from the other block. This sounds rather unlikely to me - maybe you could tell us the potential election result you're thinking of?
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
In NYC, every building just has an AC in the window, I am not sure why we don't allow that here.
The reason for no A/C is regulations stating that passive cooling must be used (unless absolutely impossible)
These came from the time that energy efficiency was being pushed, without considering the energy source.
In turn this means having complex geometries for flats - multiple aspects - more expensive and lower density.
Natural air flow is ineffective above 25c
What I am bemused about is that new build flats even in London (very expensive ones) are still built without AC. I am not sure why my building was given AC in 2014 when it was built. It seems really hard to get it.
Why couldn't he have done that months ago - at least before the elections?
Ah.
In the very distinct circumstances there could easily be a deal whereby it was noted by the prosecution that he was going to plead guilty, for the purposes of sentence reduction, but for reasons of political fairness the plea was not taken in open court until now.
"political fairness"? To have it confirmed that the treasurer of the leading party of Scotland was corrupt? Very fair on the other parties - not.
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
Our Air Source Heat Pump has a cooling mode and is now pumping water at 16°C through our floor, which is keeping the house nice and cool. Most ASHPs have that option now.
A Bank Holiday and a debate on voting systems, what more could a red-blooded Englishman want?
As a long time member and supporter of the Lib Dems, I've always been opposed to what I regard as the inequity of FPTP and I've cited examples such as Newham, Sutton and other places in the past where one party states exist on relatively low vote shares.
My ideal would be true proportionality - 20% of the vote equals 20% of the seats but that will never happen.
As to what might work, STV for LOCAL elections looks a good place to start. In Richmond, the LDs won 100% of the seats on 51.5% of the vote - that means the 48.5% who voted for other parties have no voice at all - that can' t be right. On the vote shares, the LDs would have majority control but there would be a strong opposition and I'm a believer in plural democracy with as many voices as possible represented and included.
In Newham, the 19% who voted Reform, Conservative, LD or CPA got nothing while the 81% who voted Labour, NIP and Greens got 100% of the seats which is also wrong.
Representative plural democracy can't just be a meaningless aspiration - it has to be something which we can all see would encourage voter participation, engagement and turnout.
As for Westminster elections, I remain to be convinced. The link between the MP and the constituency is important and the MP does speak for all constituents irrespective of how they voted and represents them all in the same way.
Except there are so many counterexample of MPs who don't give much of a damn about their co stunts that it's an exceedingly poor argument for FPTP.
Most of the time, when I've asked an MP for help I've got it, even when I've been a fairly high profile activist for another party. The exception was a newly elected Conservative MP who when I raised my issue with him explained that whatever it was was all the fault of Labour. When I, perhaps foolishly, said that both parties had been as bad as each other he lost interest.
Well, he was remanded in custody so a prison sentence seems likely.
I can’t believe Sturgeon didn’t know.
Murrell was SNP Chief Exec for 22 years. Wings Over Scotland will claim a lot of the credit, it was his website which highlighted the lack of ring fenced funds shown in SNP accounts.
Be interesting if we get a full breakdown, where, when the money went, etc. If you were a card carrying SNP member or donor you should be furious at this
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
In NYC, every building just has an AC in the window, I am not sure why we don't allow that here.
Can you imagine the Mail, Telegraph, Express, GBNews, Kemikaze, Farage scare stories about Legionella
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
In NYC, every building just has an AC in the window, I am not sure why we don't allow that here.
The reason for no A/C is regulations stating that passive cooling must be used (unless absolutely impossible)
These came from the time that energy efficiency was being pushed, without considering the energy source.
In turn this means having complex geometries for flats - multiple aspects - more expensive and lower density.
Natural air flow is ineffective above 25c
What I am bemused about is that new build flats even in London (very expensive ones) are still built without AC. I am not sure why my building was given AC in 2014 when it was built. It seems really hard to get it.
Building regs.
If you are running the rattley old American style stuff from the 1960s, powered by coal fired power stations, they had a point. But Daikan run off solar panels is a totally different beast.
Once again, regulations have become outdated. But changing them is impossible for... reasons.
Why couldn't he have done that months ago - at least before the elections?
Ah.
Commenting as Peter Murrell pleads guilty to embezzling £400,000, Scottish Labour Deputy Leader Jackie Baillie said "After years of investigations, millions of pounds of public money and one conveniently timed election, Peter Murrell has finally had to own up to his crimes.
"This bombshell plea does not put the issue to bed - far trom it.
"It is inconceivable that Nicola Sturgeon knew nothing about the large-scale fraud, which she benefited from, taking place under her nose in both her party and her home.
"It was Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP party machine that attempted to close ranks and shut down scrutiny when questions about the finances started to emerge and we need to know why.
"John Swinney needs to come clean and explain what he knew and what the party knew.
"There should be a review into why the hearing was delayed until after the election and why the public were denied the truth until the timing was more convenient for the SNP.
"The rotten culture of sleaze, scandal and secrecy in the SNP needs to end - it's time for the truth."
Why couldn't he have done that months ago - at least before the elections?
Ah.
In the very distinct circumstances there could easily be a deal whereby it was noted by the prosecution that he was going to plead guilty, for the purposes of sentence reduction, but for reasons of political fairness the plea was not taken in open court until now.
"political fairness"? To have it confirmed that the treasurer of the leading party of Scotland was corrupt? Very fair on the other parties - not.
Good point, but the reality is that it is potentially unfair either way. If done a week before elections, the SNP can reasonably argue that this is prejudicial in an unfair way because there is no evidence of any SNP candidate doing any wrong. As it is, done now it is arguably a cover up to the disadvantage of other parties. Can't win in politics.
Is is possible Nicola didn't know? I suppose if it was "only" £35k per year it is.
It is possible. If she is as stupid as she claims and has as bad a memory.
Now let us ask a different question.
Is it plausible that somebody who rose to the top of the SNP and put together perhaps the most formidable election winning machine in Europe is as stupid and forgetful as Sturgeon claims to be?
If Burnham wins convincingly and then oversees Labour doing well, my view that the heart of Labour's issues is poor communication, will be proved correct.
As David Ogilvy said trying to sell something without advertising 'is like winking at a girl in the dark. You know what you're doing but nobody else does'.
Is is possible Nicola didn't know? I suppose if it was "only" £35k per year it is.
Sturgeon was deputy leader then leader from 2004 until 2023, Murrell was Chief Exec for virtually her entire tenure. Astonishing if she didn't realise there was something going on.
I can understand the treasurer Colin Beattie not being aware, but NS? Wow. I wonder what Murrell gets out of this not going to trial other than a lighter sentence. He has chosen not to let the dirty linen hang out to dry
Thank you for the link, which I found interesting. Unfortunately I can't handle arguments like his, which are as follows:
i) This is the poll and it says this
ii) It makes these assumptions (lists them)
iii) Kellner think those assumptions are wrong
iv) Kellner think those assumptions should be this instead (lists new assumptions)
v) That makes the poll say this instead
I understand the argument, it's perfectly logical, but how in the name of goodness can I check it? Even for plausibility?
Good points. My post was a betting post! So the matter is more like assessing form in racing or football. There is no definitive answer to what weight to give to what factor, argument or assumption until after the race. This is betting, not science. I conclude from Kellner - who I think is an honest appraiser though I am sure he has political biases - that more weight should be given to the chance of a Labour win than the single poll suggests. (The poll itself taken on its own says that 47% propose to vote far right and 43% Labour, and other parties are squeezed out of sight. This looks very like a Reform win, given recent local results and the possibility of shy Reformers.)
This may make Labour value at current odds, though for now I have not jumped in.
Is is possible Nicola didn't know? I suppose if it was "only" £35k per year it is.
Sturgeon was deputy leader then leader from 2004 until 2023, Murrell was Chief Exec for virtually her entire tenure. Astonishing if she didn't realise there was something going on.
I can understand the treasurer Colin Beattie not being aware, but NS? Wow. I wonder what Murrell gets out of this not going to trial other than a lighter sentence. He has chosen not to let the dirty linen hang out to dry
Maybe he was offered a Jeffrey.
Whether that was an Archer or an Epstein I'll leave up to you.
Is is possible Nicola didn't know? I suppose if it was "only" £35k per year it is.
It is possible. If she is as stupid as she claims and has as bad a memory.
Now let us ask a different question.
Is it plausible that somebody who rose to the top of the SNP and put together perhaps the most formidable election winning machine in Europe is as stupid and forgetful as Sturgeon claims to be?
To be fair to Sturgeon she hasn't been charged unlike her ex husband so we have to leave it at that.
Not great timing for Swinney though, even though it comes after the Holyrood elections we still have the Aberdeen South by election to come where the Scottish Conservatives will be hoping for a gain
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
In NYC, every building just has an AC in the window, I am not sure why we don't allow that here.
Can you imagine the Mail, Telegraph, Express, GBNews, Kemikaze, Farage scare stories about Legionella
Planning regs - at the time they were introduced, it was about energy conservation. So if you are building new flats, you are supposed to not use aircon.
I has a hilarious conversation with the local council - When I did the loft conversion, I spec'd air source heat pumps (reversible air con) and solar panels. The way it was done, I didn't need permission for either. But included them in the drawings sent in.
I got a phone call, with a guy bleating about how I shouldn't install A/C, since it was "wasteful". I pointed out that due to insulation, it would only need to run a for a few minutes per hour, and the rooftop solar would generate far more than that on 25c+ days. But "waste" he bleated.
So my elderly mother-in-law will sleep well tonight.
Is is possible Nicola didn't know? I suppose if it was "only" £35k per year it is.
Sturgeon was deputy leader then leader from 2004 until 2023, Murrell was Chief Exec for virtually her entire tenure. Astonishing if she didn't realise there was something going on.
I can understand the treasurer Colin Beattie not being aware, but NS? Wow. I wonder what Murrell gets out of this not going to trial other than a lighter sentence. He has chosen not to let the dirty linen hang out to dry
John Swinney was deputy FM during Nicola's period as FM. The same period of time that Mr Murrell was up to his tricks.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
After a few gins, he starts banging on about IQ being race based and The Muslamics are all going to kill us. Oh, and we need to expel zillions of immigrants.
Sounds fairly racialist* to me.
*Not sure why i think this word should be used more. But I do.
Britain’s justice system is creaking at the seams.Wanted criminals are fleeing the country, escaping the reaches of the UK police. In this new investigation, @C4Dispatches reveals an unprecedented rise in British criminals, skipping court and going on the run.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
After a few gins, he starts banging on about IQ being race based and The Muslamics are all going to kill us. Oh, and we need to expel zillions of immigrants.
Sounds fairly racialist* to me.
*Not sure why i think this word should be used more. But I do.
Is is possible Nicola didn't know? I suppose if it was "only" £35k per year it is.
Sturgeon was deputy leader then leader from 2004 until 2023, Murrell was Chief Exec for virtually her entire tenure. Astonishing if she didn't realise there was something going on.
I can understand the treasurer Colin Beattie not being aware, but NS? Wow. I wonder what Murrell gets out of this not going to trial other than a lighter sentence. He has chosen not to let the dirty linen hang out to dry
John Swinney was deputy FM during Nicola's period as FM. The same period of time that Mr Murrell was up to his tricks.
Make your own minds up.
To be fair, given his track record is less than sparkling I can believe he probably was ignorant of what was going on.
But that's hardly a great look. It reminds me of a recent firm of solicitors being sued for negligence after their bungling over a wholly unnecessary indemnity was blamed for a major property deal collapsing. Their barrister's defence amounted to, 'yes, the solicitors are utter fucking cretins but it would have collapsed even if they weren't for other reasons.'
It may be true, but if you want to hold a responsible position it's not a great look...
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
After a few gins, he starts banging on about IQ being race based and The Muslamics are all going to kill us. Oh, and we need to expel zillions of immigrants.
Sounds fairly racialist* to me.
*Not sure why i think this word should be used more. But I do.
Comments
Even if it were, do you think his claim that women falsly claim rape in order to get abortions? That may happen in some US states, but why would it be done here when we effectively have abortion by request?
In a any case, Belgium is virtually two countries, it doesn't really matter too much who runs the national government
As a former MP I'm familiar with the argument that one's elected on the basis of personal qualities. It's true to a limit of maybe 10% of the electorate - most of the remainder don't have a clear view that candidate X is better than Y, and a significant proportion couldn't tell you who X and Y were.
The trouble with AV - which I acknowledge is what we'd get in Britain - is a clear bias to the centre parties, beyond that relfecting actual support for them. That works if politics is a smooth left-right axis, but in reality there are numerous dimensions, with the nominally centre parties out on one extreme (e.g. the LibDem preference for rejoining the EU as quickly as possible). Nonetheless, AV does give a fairer reflection of what most voters want. And let's be honest - most of the time one vote isn't going to decide anything - it's a general impression that counts.
The voters were able to punish the Lib Dems for breaking their promises at the next election. This is just as true with a coalition as with a majority government, not all of which hold to their promises.
Secondly, I don't think the Lib Dems had to abandon their signature manifesto commitment. They chose to trade it for other things in the coalition agreement. Parties might be more careful about which promises they get their candidates to sign pledges on in future, if they're not going to prioritise them in coalition negotiations.
This often comes up in pre-election debates in countries like Ireland where coalition negotiations are normal, particularly so in Ireland where, under STV, most parties don't stand enough candidates to form a majority government, even were they to unexpectedly receive a majority of the votes.
1) Why do we not build all new builds with solar panels on the roof?
2) Why do we not give funding for heat source pumps that can both heat and cool?
- i) This is the poll and it says this
- ii) It makes these assumptions (lists them)
- iii) Kellner think those assumptions are wrong
- iv) Kellner think those assumptions should be this instead (lists new assumptions)
- v) That makes the poll say this instead
I understand the argument, it's perfectly logical, but how in the name of goodness can I check it? Even for plausibility?Peter Murrell pleads guilty.
An extraordinary moment.
Shouldn’t even be allowed to go to judicial review. It’s been approved. That’s it.
Peter Murrell has pleaded guilty to charges of embezzling more than £400,000 from the SNP over a period of 12 years in what the judge called a “gross breach of trust”.
The former SNP chief executive was remanded in custody to await sentencing.
When it was a question of being on the side of the King's power, or Parliament's, well, you only needed two parties. Similarly when the main interest groups in society were three urban middle class and the landed gentry, or the working class and the representatives of capital.
But British politics is more complicated now. It needs five parties represented in the Commons (plus the Nats), so that they can sort out disagreements in the open, in Parliament.
Edited: *or, indeed, anyone. I was just making a general comment.
What you are saying is, if I'd not mentioned AC, you'd have commented anyway? Why lie?
Ah.
I wanted a full trial with Nicola Sturgeon giving evidence.
The Rozzers have been fully vindicated for putting up that tent.
There was no such thing. The only CTPVF for was to kick out the Tories. This is what united three quarters of the electorate. The phrase makes sense only in that context and that Change was duly delivered on the morning after the election. As for change beyond that, there is no popular consensus whatsoever. This is well demonstrated on here. What some people want many others find foolish or repellent.
The effect of this, a large majority on a small vote, has been to set up the government to fail. The criticisms of 'no plan' and 'useless Starmer' aren't wholly unfair, I'm not saying that, but the warped GE result and the consequent clash of expectations vs political reality and the mislabelling and exaggeration of the mandate has certainly contributed to the problem.
Local government does not carry the same constitutional role, political expectations or concentration of sovereign authority.
That distinction matters because different electoral systems optimise for different things. PR systems tend to prioritise representational fairness and negotiated consensus, whereas Westminster historically prioritised decisive executive formation and clear electoral accountability.
You can absolutely argue the latter model should change, but that is a broader constitutional argument than simply “PR is fairer”.
This may make Labour value at current odds, though for now I have not jumped in.
I am sitting in pleasant dappled shade watching the bees on my containers, and recuperating from yesterdays departmental outing. We have the tradition of a May Bank Holiday departmental hike, and yesterday was quite a scorcher as everyone in the Midlands and North were out doing the same in the Peaks. Two observations:
1) Few people are more beautiful from the additions of tattoos, particulary on neck or breasts.
2) Bank Holiday hikers are amazingly multicultural, with all ethnicities, ages and fitness levels on show, from sporty fell runners in lycra, Muslims and Sikhs in flowing robes, young Black guys in hoodies, to pensioners with flat cap and walking sticks, dog lovers, WWC Brummies with shirts off, East European familes. All out having a good time. Who says we can't all be British and integrate in the things that matter?
These came from the time that energy efficiency was being pushed, without considering the energy source.
In turn this means having complex geometries for flats - multiple aspects - more expensive and lower density.
Natural air flow is ineffective above 25c
Foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baqai's remarks came after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said an agreement could possibly be reached on Monday."
Tehran buggering up Donald's plans to grift some more on insider trading the oil price?
Be interesting if we get a full breakdown, where, when the money went, etc. If you were a card carrying SNP member or donor you should be furious at this
If you are running the rattley old American style stuff from the 1960s, powered by coal fired power stations, they had a point. But Daikan run off solar panels is a totally different beast.
Once again, regulations have become outdated. But changing them is impossible for... reasons.
"This bombshell plea does not put the issue to bed - far trom it.
"It is inconceivable that Nicola Sturgeon knew nothing about the large-scale fraud, which she benefited from, taking place under her nose in both her party and her home.
"It was Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP party machine that attempted to close ranks and shut down scrutiny when questions about the finances started to emerge and we need to know why.
"John Swinney needs to come clean and explain what he knew and what the party knew.
"There should be a review into why the hearing was delayed until after the election and why the public were denied the truth until the timing was more convenient for the SNP.
"The rotten culture of sleaze, scandal and secrecy in the SNP needs to end - it's time for the truth."
Now let us ask a different question.
Is it plausible that somebody who rose to the top of the SNP and put together perhaps the most formidable election winning machine in Europe is as stupid and forgetful as Sturgeon claims to be?
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
Surely they stopped *wondering* that when all that Ferguson Marine stuff came out?
Unlike Sturgeon...
I can understand the treasurer Colin Beattie not being aware, but NS? Wow. I wonder what Murrell gets out of this not going to trial other than a lighter sentence. He has chosen not to let the dirty linen hang out to dry
Whether that was an Archer or an Epstein I'll leave up to you.
Not great timing for Swinney though, even though it comes after the Holyrood elections we still have the Aberdeen South by election to come where the Scottish Conservatives will be hoping for a gain
I has a hilarious conversation with the local council - When I did the loft conversion, I spec'd air source heat pumps (reversible air con) and solar panels. The way it was done, I didn't need permission for either. But included them in the drawings sent in.
I got a phone call, with a guy bleating about how I shouldn't install A/C, since it was "wasteful". I pointed out that due to insulation, it would only need to run a for a few minutes per hour, and the rooftop solar would generate far more than that on 25c+ days. But "waste" he bleated.
So my elderly mother-in-law will sleep well tonight.
I'll host if I can do the awesome and subtle puns.
Make your own minds up.
Sounds fairly racialist* to me.
*Not sure why i think this word should be used more. But I do.
https://x.com/C4Dispatches/status/2058844201035436075?s=20
It would be like the Iraeli/Arabs in the Knesset.
But that's hardly a great look. It reminds me of a recent firm of solicitors being sued for negligence after their bungling over a wholly unnecessary indemnity was blamed for a major property deal collapsing. Their barrister's defence amounted to, 'yes, the solicitors are utter fucking cretins but it would have collapsed even if they weren't for other reasons.'
It may be true, but if you want to hold a responsible position it's not a great look...
Personally I think that's long overdue and should be welcomed.
I remember before COVID when the local council were doing everything possible to ban this.