Zac Goldsmith’s mayoral campaign team is investigating a claim that one of their canvassers made an Islamophobic remark about the Labour candidate, Sadiq Khan.
The unidentified man was said to have been distributing leaflets for the Conservative candidate when he allegedly referred to Khan as “the Muslim” in a doorstep exchange with Perry Pontac, of Streatham, south London.
Goldsmith’s team said they were investigating the allegation, which they were made aware of in writing last week. They said any such remark would be unacceptable.
Perhaps Mr. Pontac's account and that of the leafleter (if he exists) would differ.
I predict many more claims of Islamophobia and racism as we lead up to polling day...
I'm not sure that the Labour party are wise to emphasize Mr Khan's religion by constantly drawing attention to it in claims against his opponent. A very large number of electors do not live in inner London....
Can we get some good polls or ramping out for Zac, I'd like to square up at evens or at least 5-6 on Khan.
Ha! I'm hoping for something of the same. I think Khan will win but I don't like the current odds.
Miliband...appealed to middle class public sector workers, Corbyn will do neither.
Can you explain that? In my experience Corbyn is very popular among middle class public sector workers. They see him as on their side against the cuts the government is bringing forward. That post yesterday which falsified data to try and prove it was only the Falklands War that won the 1983 general election was written by the wife of a fairly high-ranking police officer.
It is however a comparatively small demographic. On their own, particularly after a few more years of shrinkage, they will not swing any election outside London and possibly other cities with a big public sector workforce, e.g. Bristol, Manchester and Newcastle.
Zac Goldsmith’s mayoral campaign team is investigating a claim that one of their canvassers made an Islamophobic remark about the Labour candidate, Sadiq Khan.
The unidentified man was said to have been distributing leaflets for the Conservative candidate when he allegedly referred to Khan as “the Muslim” in a doorstep exchange with Perry Pontac, of Streatham, south London.
Goldsmith’s team said they were investigating the allegation, which they were made aware of in writing last week. They said any such remark would be unacceptable.
Perhaps Mr. Pontac's account and that of the leafleter (if he exists) would differ.
I predict many more claims of Islamophobia and racism as we lead up to polling day...
I'm not sure that the Labour party are wise to emphasize Mr Khan's religion by constantly drawing attention to it in claims against his opponent. A very large number of electors do not live in inner London....
Can we get some good polls or ramping out for Zac, I'd like to square up at evens or at least 5-6 on Khan.
Margaret Thatcher is reputed to have said, in a moment of extreme exasperation in about 1980, 'I think I am the cabinet rebel'. When pressed on whether she admired her ministers for having the courage of their convictions, she snapped, 'I want them to have the courage of my convictions.'
That's the difference between the Right and (some of) the Left. The Right - even the very Right like Thatcher - understand that there are other points of view. The Corbynistas just can't comprehend how anyone can have a different opinion to their's.
That's because leftism is like a religion. They are right and everyone else is going to hell. Anyone who isn't with them needs to he converted and those who refuse should die or something to that effect.
While that does apply to Corbynites one only has to read through any PB thread to realise that isn't the sole prerogative of the left.
It's true in the right, but much rarer. We have one or two on here who I think might be CCHQ bots.
Could this possibly ever so slightly be a case of seeing only the mote in your neighbour's eye?
Miliband...appealed to middle class public sector workers, Corbyn will do neither.
Can you explain that? In my experience Corbyn is very popular among middle class public sector workers. They see him as on their side against the cuts the government is bringing forward. That post yesterday which falsified data to try and prove it was only the Falklands War that won the 1983 general election was written by the wife of a fairly high-ranking police officer.
It is however a comparatively small demographic. On their own, particularly after a few more years of shrinkage, they will not swing any election outside London and possibly other cities with a big public sector workforce, e.g. Bristol, Manchester and Newcastle.
Higher taxes. A lot of them will be pulled into the 40p rate, there is no guarantee that a Corbyn government won't turn the 40p into 45p and the 45p into 50p and bring all the thresholds down. Middle class public sector workers are on the cusp of higher rate tax, many of them voted Tory this time round because Dave pledged to raise the threshold to £50k by 2020. I think the lower income ones will be broadly in favour of Corbyn but not the middle class ones. One thing I have learned about public sector workers is that they claim to be in favour of collectivism or the greater good, but in reality they are as self-serving as the rest of us, if a potential leader or government threatens their income with high taxes they won't vote in favour.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
What % of the population actually vote for an individual - the current system is party based!
No it is not. Legally you are voting for an individual. If you are too stupid to realise that then that is your lookout.
I'm talking reality, not theory!
Joe Bloggs down the road voted Labour not for Mr. A.N.Other - he may have ticked the box for A.N.Other but it's the party he's voted for! It's the party he relates with not the individual!
I have temporarily escaped the rellies and have claret, stilton and Agatha Christie on iPlayer, so I will not let you disrupt my good mood, but this really trips my pedant gene. Richard_Tyndall is correct on this point: the voter votes for the *person* in UK MP elections, not the *party*. I appreciate that some people sincerely believe otherwise, but factually they are wrong.
I know this - it's about the voter's perception on what they are voting for? Of all the people that voted in the last GE, how many of them remember the candidate they voted for and how many of them would remember the party they voted? I would say 25% and 95% respectively?
Zac Goldsmith’s mayoral campaign team is investigating a claim that one of their canvassers made an Islamophobic remark about the Labour candidate, Sadiq Khan.
The unidentified man was said to have been distributing leaflets for the Conservative candidate when he allegedly referred to Khan as “the Muslim” in a doorstep exchange with Perry Pontac, of Streatham, south London.
Goldsmith’s team said they were investigating the allegation, which they were made aware of in writing last week. They said any such remark would be unacceptable.
Perhaps Mr. Pontac's account and that of the leafleter (if he exists) would differ.
I predict many more claims of Islamophobia and racism as we lead up to polling day...
I'm not sure that the Labour party are wise to emphasize Mr Khan's religion by constantly drawing attention to it in claims against his opponent. A very large number of electors do not live in inner London....
Can we get some good polls or ramping out for Zac, I'd like to square up at evens or at least 5-6 on Khan.
Margaret Thatcher is reputed to have said, in a moment of extreme exasperation in about 1980, 'I think I am the cabinet rebel'. When pressed on whether she admired her ministers for having the courage of their convictions, she snapped, 'I want them to have the courage of my convictions.'
That's the difference between the Right and (some of) the Left. The Right - even the very Right like Thatcher - understand that there are other points of view. The Corbynistas just can't comprehend how anyone can have a different opinion to their's.
That's because leftism is like a religion. They are right and everyone else is going to hell. Anyone who isn't with them needs to he converted and those who refuse should die or something to that effect.
While that does apply to Corbynites one only has to read through any PB thread to realise that isn't the sole prerogative of the left.
It's true in the right, but much rarer. We have one or two on here who I think might be CCHQ bots.
Could this possibly ever so slightly be a case of seeing only the mote in your neighbour's eye?
No, even on here, a place that can hardly be described as a leftist haven, there was little to no dissent against Miliband, we had scads of EICIPM rubbish from October to May despite common sense (and Jack W, Rod C) telling us otherwise. The few posters who posted against the leftist narrative like SO were derided as Tories, Dan Hodges was derided as a closet Tory.
Now the slightly less pragmatic, but not insane types are seeing Corbyn for what he truly is and dissenting. There are still a lot of batshit insane leftists who think Corbyn is good for Labour and the leftist cause when he is clearly neither.
How many times have you seen the likes of chilon, surbiton or IoS post with glee when the government do something stupid that has people on the right in open warfare. I remember when I posted that I would be voting UKIP in the London Assembly elections IoS was happy that the right was "tearing itself apart". Recently I have seen that on the left, but it's mostly from people who were already wary of Ed.
The right treats politics much less like a religion, I don't think that is arguable.
Miliband...appealed to middle class public sector workers, Corbyn will do neither.
Can you explain that? In my experience Corbyn is very popular among middle class public sector workers. They see him as on their side against the cuts the government is bringing forward. That post yesterday which falsified data to try and prove it was only the Falklands War that won the 1983 general election was written by the wife of a fairly high-ranking police officer.
It is however a comparatively small demographic. On their own, particularly after a few more years of shrinkage, they will not swing any election outside London and possibly other cities with a big public sector workforce, e.g. Bristol, Manchester and Newcastle.
Higher taxes. A lot of them will be pulled into the 40p rate, there is no guarantee that a Corbyn government won't turn the 40p into 45p and the 45p into 50p and bring all the thresholds down. Middle class public sector workers are on the cusp of higher rate tax, many of them voted Tory this time round because Dave pledged to raise the threshold to £50k by 2020. I think the lower income ones will be broadly in favour of Corbyn but not the middle class ones. One thing I have learned about public sector workers is that they claim to be in favour of collectivism or the greater good, but in reality they are as self-serving as the rest of us, if a potential leader or government threatens their income with high taxes they won't vote in favour.
Not unreasonable. But don't forget most PS workers don't think about detailed policy statements and don't think of themselves as 'higher earners' even when they are earning 40-50k a year (the squealing that has gone on over the recent pay freeze is astonishing to behold - try pointing out that other people get their incomes actually cut in hard times and you get accused of lying)! So I think you overrate the amount of self-interest that will go into deciding their votes. But equally, like I say, I think they are insignificant.
Higher taxes. A lot of them will be pulled into the 40p rate, there is no guarantee that a Corbyn government won't turn the 40p into 45p and the 45p into 50p and bring all the thresholds down. Middle class public sector workers are on the cusp of higher rate tax, many of them voted Tory this time round because Dave pledged to raise the threshold to £50k by 2020. I think the lower income ones will be broadly in favour of Corbyn but not the middle class ones. One thing I have learned about public sector workers is that they claim to be in favour of collectivism or the greater good, but in reality they are as self-serving as the rest of us, if a potential leader or government threatens their income with high taxes they won't vote in favour.
As someone who has worked in the public sector - albeit not in the 40p tax bracket (unfortunately) - I can testify to this. Lots of lefty winging about the Tories, but they'd hate anyone to put up their taxes.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
What % of the population actually vote for an individual - the current system is party based!
No it is not. Legally you are voting for an individual. If you are too stupid to realise that then that is your lookout.
I'm talking reality, not theory!
Joe Bloggs down the road voted Labour not for Mr. A.N.Other - he may have ticked the box for A.N.Other but it's the party he's voted for! It's the party he relates with not the individual!
How do you know? Did you ask him?
No doubt research has been done on this but the number of people who vote on anything but the candidates' party affiliation must be tiny.
One indication of this is that everyone takes the question "how did you/will you vote" to refer to party not candidate. If you ask me how I voted in May, you would probably think I was being deliberately obtuse if I said that I voted for Ms Rowley and left it at that.
Sure - but he made a declarative statement about something which he could not possibly know.
Margaret Thatcher is reputed to have said, in a moment of extreme exasperation in about 1980, 'I think I am the cabinet rebel'. When pressed on whether she admired her ministers for having the courage of their convictions, she snapped, 'I want them to have the courage of my convictions.'
That's the difference between the Right and (some of) the Left. The Right - even the very Right like Thatcher - understand that there are other points of view. The Corbynistas just can't comprehend how anyone can have a different opinion to their's.
That's because leftism is like a religion. They are right and everyone else is going to hell. Anyone who isn't with them needs to he converted and those who refuse should die or something to that effect.
While that does apply to Corbynites one only has to read through any PB thread to realise that isn't the sole prerogative of the left.
It's true in the right, but much rarer. We have one or two on here who I think might be CCHQ bots.
Could this possibly ever so slightly be a case of seeing only the mote in your neighbour's eye?
I think it is probably as much that we see the worst of the 'other' side through social media, but lots of normal (and not adversarial) people from our own side in our day to day lives. Having said that a lot of labour activists are self righteous. it depresses me how all labour speeches have to begin with 'baby eating Tories/24 hours to save the NHS/bedroom tax/food banks' if only because it is talking to ourselves and the electorate aren't particularly bothered.
I know this - it's about the voter's perception on what they are voting for? Of all the people that voted in the last GE, how many of them remember the candidate they voted for and how many of them would remember the party they voted? I would say 25% and 95% respectively?
It's moot. Whatever drives the motivation if the representative they voted for gets most votes he or she wins. If they fail to get the most votes then they lose fair and square.
Of all the people that voted in the last GE, how many of them remember the candidate they voted for and how many of them would remember the party they voted? I would say 25% and 95% respectively?
I know I voted for Rob Burberry in the General Election this year. I couldn't tell you the name of the Ukip candidate that I voted for in the local election.
Higher taxes. A lot of them will be pulled into the 40p rate, there is no guarantee that a Corbyn government won't turn the 40p into 45p and the 45p into 50p and bring all the thresholds down. Middle class public sector workers are on the cusp of higher rate tax, many of them voted Tory this time round because Dave pledged to raise the threshold to £50k by 2020. I think the lower income ones will be broadly in favour of Corbyn but not the middle class ones. One thing I have learned about public sector workers is that they claim to be in favour of collectivism or the greater good, but in reality they are as self-serving as the rest of us, if a potential leader or government threatens their income with high taxes they won't vote in favour.
That's quite a key point (not just for public sector workers). Many - actually, probably a very large majority - of people will vote for higher taxes for "rich" people when that is understood to be people way richer than them. However, that won't raise much (maybe no) money. If you want genuine tax-and-spend then you have to increase taxes on middle-income types.
I know this is obvious but at the last election it seemed to be brushed under the carpet by both Labour and the Lib Dems who were offering me a multitude of goodies all funded by the Mansion Tax. And as a voter it's not hard to conclude "Yeah, that Mansion Tax is going to raise FA and then you will come after me."
This is also asymmetric. The Conservatives can get away with unfunded spending pledges more easily than Labour, on the Nixon-goes-to-China principle.
Zac Goldsmith’s mayoral campaign team is investigating a claim that one of their canvassers made an Islamophobic remark about the Labour candidate, Sadiq Khan.
The unidentified man was said to have been distributing leaflets for the Conservative candidate when he allegedly referred to Khan as “the Muslim” in a doorstep exchange with Perry Pontac, of Streatham, south London.
Goldsmith’s team said they were investigating the allegation, which they were made aware of in writing last week. They said any such remark would be unacceptable.
Perhaps Mr. Pontac's account and that of the leafleter (if he exists) would differ.
I predict many more claims of Islamophobia and racism as we lead up to polling day...
I'm not sure that the Labour party are wise to emphasize Mr Khan's religion by constantly drawing attention to it in claims against his opponent. A very large number of electors do not live in inner London....
I do wonder what Sir Lynton might be thinking about this.
Higher taxes. A lot of them will be pulled into the 40p rate, there is no guarantee that a Corbyn government won't turn the 40p into 45p and the 45p into 50p and bring all the thresholds down. Middle class public sector workers are on the cusp of higher rate tax, many of them voted Tory this time round because Dave pledged to raise the threshold to £50k by 2020. I think the lower income ones will be broadly in favour of Corbyn but not the middle class ones. One thing I have learned about public sector workers is that they claim to be in favour of collectivism or the greater good, but in reality they are as self-serving as the rest of us, if a potential leader or government threatens their income with high taxes they won't vote in favour.
That's quite a key point (not just for public sector workers). Many - actually, probably a very large majority - of people will vote for higher taxes for "rich" people when that is understood to be people way richer than them. However, that won't raise much (maybe no) money. If you want genuine tax-and-spend then you have to increase taxes on middle-income types.
I know this is obvious but at the last election it seemed to be brushed under the carpet by both Labour and the Lib Dems who were offering me a multitude of goodies all funded by the Mansion Tax. And as a voter it's not hard to conclude "Yeah, that Mansion Tax is going to raise FA and then you will come after me."
This is also asymmetric. The Conservatives can get away with unfunded spending pledges more easily than Labour, on the Nixon-goes-to-China principle.
I think that is one of the reasons behind those tax bills with the itemized public spending, so that people actually get some sort of concept of how much tax they already pay and actually what it gets spent on.
Higher taxes. A lot of them will be pulled into the 40p rate, there is no guarantee that a Corbyn government won't turn the 40p into 45p and the 45p into 50p and bring all the thresholds down. Middle class public sector workers are on the cusp of higher rate tax, many of them voted Tory this time round because Dave pledged to raise the threshold to £50k by 2020. I think the lower income ones will be broadly in favour of Corbyn but not the middle class ones. One thing I have learned about public sector workers is that they claim to be in favour of collectivism or the greater good, but in reality they are as self-serving as the rest of us, if a potential leader or government threatens their income with high taxes they won't vote in favour.
That's quite a key point (not just for public sector workers). Many - actually, probably a very large majority - of people will vote for higher taxes for "rich" people when that is understood to be people way richer than them. However, that won't raise much (maybe no) money. If you want genuine tax-and-spend then you have to increase taxes on middle-income types.
I know this is obvious but at the last election it seemed to be brushed under the carpet by both Labour and the Lib Dems who were offering me a multitude of goodies all funded by the Mansion Tax. And as a voter it's not hard to conclude "Yeah, that Mansion Tax is going to raise FA and then you will come after me."
This is also asymmetric. The Conservatives can get away with unfunded spending pledges more easily than Labour, on the Nixon-goes-to-China principle.
It is a truth sadly not universally acknowledged but true nevertheless that 100 % of voters think everyone else should be paying more tax
Margaret Thatcher is reputed to have said, in a moment of extreme exasperation in about 1980, 'I think I am the cabinet rebel'. When pressed on whether she admired her ministers for having the courage of their convictions, she snapped, 'I want them to have the courage of my convictions.' That's because leftism is like a religion. They are right and everyone else is going to hell. Anyone who isn't with them needs to he converted and those who refuse should die or something to that effect It's true in the right, but much rarer. We have one or two on here who I think might be CCHQ bots.
Could this possibly ever so slightly be a case of seeing only the mote in your neighbour's eye?
No, even on here, a place that can hardly be described as a leftist haven, there was little to no dissent against Miliband, we had scads of EICIPM rubbish from October to May despite common sense (and Jack W, Rod C) telling us otherwise. The few posters who posted against the leftist narrative like SO were derided as Tories, Dan Hodges was derided as a closet Tory.
Now the slightly less pragmatic, but not insane types are seeing Corbyn for what he truly is and dissenting. There are still a lot of batshit insane leftists who think Corbyn is good for Labour and the leftist cause when he is clearly neither.
How many times have you seen the likes of chilon, surbiton or IoS post with glee when the government do something stupid that has people on the right in open warfare. I remember when I posted that I would be voting UKIP in the London Assembly elections IoS was happy that the right was "tearing itself apart". Recently I have seen that on the left, but it's mostly from people who were already wary of Ed.
The right treats politics much less like a religion, I don't think that is arguable.
If you start from a political outlooks that favours individual freedom, above the collective, then it is much easier to tolerate individuals who happen to disagree, after-all that's there chose. If you start from a group mentality weather that be a class, religion, ethnicity, or nationality, everything has to be for the good of the group, then anybody who disagrees is ether not part of the group and therefor an enemy, or is part of the group and therefor a traitor Margret Thatcher is hatted on the left for many reasons, but as well as remaking the UK economy, she also reformed the conservative party to one that supports individual freedoms, and since then the party has become fare more tolerant of and open to other opinions, you will just not find many people saying that.
I think that is one of the reasons behind those tax bills with the itemized public spending, so that people actually get some sort of concept of how much tax they already pay and actually what it gets spent on.
And to convince people that we don't spend that much on the EU! Of course, if they disaggregated the data further we'd see that we spend more on the EU than on other things that we might think more important.
Agree with the tax point. The whole 1% meme has been a disaster for the left as it has convinced a load of people that everything would be alright if only we could tax some other very rich person. In fact to raise any significant money you need a broad tax base - which undoubtedly includes middle income (which contrary to popular belief is not that high) households. Bearing that in mind you need to either make a positive case for taxation and show you can provide better services or cut your cloth differently. The whole richard murphy/McDonnell tax gap/avoidance stuff deliberately avoids this choice, and also any reforms to public services other than increasing provider power.
Just follow Jess Phillips twitter account, she has been ripping the piss out of momentum tonight.
She is quite a star. There are Labour MPs who can really connect with the public but none that are onside with the regime (that I know of, to be fair).
Higher taxes. A lot of them will be pulled into the 40p rate, there is no guarantee that a Corbyn government won't turn the 40p into 45p and the 45p into 50p and bring all the thresholds down. Middle class public sector workers are on the cusp of higher rate tax, many of them voted Tory this time round because Dave pledged to raise the threshold to £50k by 2020. I think the lower income ones will be broadly in favour of Corbyn but not the middle class ones. One thing I have learned about public sector workers is that they claim to be in favour of collectivism or the greater good, but in reality they are as self-serving as the rest of us, if a potential leader or government threatens their income with high taxes they won't vote in favour.
That's quite a key point (not just for public sector workers). Many - actually, probably a very large majority - of people will vote for higher taxes for "rich" people when that is understood to be people way richer than them. However, that won't raise much (maybe no) money. If you want genuine tax-and-spend then you have to increase taxes on middle-income types.
I know this is obvious but at the last election it seemed to be brushed under the carpet by both Labour and the Lib Dems who were offering me a multitude of goodies all funded by the Mansion Tax. And as a voter it's not hard to conclude "Yeah, that Mansion Tax is going to raise FA and then you will come after me."
This is also asymmetric. The Conservatives can get away with unfunded spending pledges more easily than Labour, on the Nixon-goes-to-China principle.
It is a truth sadly not universally acknowledged but true nevertheless that 100 % of voters think everyone else should be paying more tax
I think I've threaded the needle of being pretty one of the biggest beneficiaries of GO's various tax changes (% wise). So it can only really go downhill from here.
Late to the party with @Dair saying England didn't exist until 1999, and only after that in some NHS bodies. Aren't we forgetting the Church of England?
The Established church in England and Wales? It is not an English institution hence the last Anti-Pope of the CoE was Welsh.
Just follow Jess Phillips twitter account, she has been ripping the piss out of momentum tonight.
She is quite a star. There are Labour MPs who can really connect with the public but none that are onside with the regime (that I know of, to be fair).
I keep meaning to do a thread on Jess Phillips as next Labour Leader thread, but realised Tissue Price would mock me mercilessly
Agree with the tax point. The whole 1% meme has been a disaster for the left as it has convinced a load of people that everything would be alright if only we could tax some other very rich person. In fact to raise any significant money you need a broad tax base - which undoubtedly includes middle income (which contrary to popular belief is not that high) households. Bearing that in mind you need to either make a positive case for taxation and show you can provide better services or cut your cloth differently. The whole richard murphy/McDonnell tax gap/avoidance stuff deliberately avoids this choice, and also any reforms to public services other than increasing provider power.
The tax gap stuff is ridiculous. We can safely assume that every Government will collect as much tax as is practicable, which will be less than 100% of what is legally owed. It's the "efficiency savings" meme turned on its head.
Higher taxes. A lot of them will be pulled into the 40p rate, there is no guarantee that a Corbyn government won't turn the 40p into 45p and the 45p into 50p and bring all the thresholds down. Middle class public sector workers are on the cusp of higher rate tax, many of them voted Tory this time round because Dave pledged to raise the threshold to £50k by 2020. I think the lower income ones will be broadly in favour of Corbyn but not the middle class ones. One thing I have learned about public sector workers is that they claim to be in favour of collectivism or the greater good, but in reality they are as self-serving as the rest of us, if a potential leader or government threatens their income with high taxes they won't vote in favour.
That's quite a key point (not just for public sector workers). Many - actually, probably a very large majority - of people will vote for higher taxes for "rich" people when that is understood to be people way richer than them. However, that won't raise much (maybe no) money. If you want genuine tax-and-spend then you have to increase taxes on middle-income types.
I know this is obvious but at the last election it seemed to be brushed under the carpet by both Labour and the Lib Dems who were offering me a multitude of goodies all funded by the Mansion Tax. And as a voter it's not hard to conclude "Yeah, that Mansion Tax is going to raise FA and then you will come after me."
This is also asymmetric. The Conservatives can get away with unfunded spending pledges more easily than Labour, on the Nixon-goes-to-China principle.
It is a truth sadly not universally acknowledged but true nevertheless that 100 % of voters think everyone else should be paying more tax
I think I've threaded the needle of being pretty one of the biggest beneficiaries of GO's various tax changes (% wise). So it can only really go downhill from here.
Lol - me too - public sector gold -plated pension - I've gained significantly every year since 2010 and living in Spain since 2009 have also had nearly 35% boost on exchange rate and now pay under 70p a litre for diesel. This show has got to stop sometime!
Just follow Jess Phillips twitter account, she has been ripping the piss out of momentum tonight.
She is quite a star. There are Labour MPs who can really connect with the public but none that are onside with the regime (that I know of, to be fair).
I keep meaning to do a thread on Jess Phillips as next Labour Leader thread, but realised Tissue Price would mock me mercilessly
Are you talking about the same Jess Phillips who laughed at the suggestion of mental health services targeted at men?
Late to the party with @Dair saying England didn't exist until 1999, and only after that in some NHS bodies. Aren't we forgetting the Church of England?
The Established church in England and Wales? It is not an English institution hence the last Anti-Pope of the CoE was Welsh.
Oh lord do all the Scots get pissed this soon before hogmanay?
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
Late to the party with @Dair saying England didn't exist until 1999, and only after that in some NHS bodies. Aren't we forgetting the Church of England?
The Established church in England and Wales? It is not an English institution hence the last Anti-Pope of the CoE was Welsh.
ER..... Neither the Province of York nor Canterbury covers Wales!
Just follow Jess Phillips twitter account, she has been ripping the piss out of momentum tonight.
She is quite a star. There are Labour MPs who can really connect with the public but none that are onside with the regime (that I know of, to be fair).
I keep meaning to do a thread on Jess Phillips as next Labour Leader thread, but realised Tissue Price would mock me mercilessly
Are you talking about the same Jess Phillips who laughed at the suggestion of mental health services targeted at men?
After 11 years, our old LG 27" TV (purchased to watch Battlestar Gallactica!) has waved bye-bye and gone to the great recycler in the sky. It has served us well, but it was starting to show its age: parts of the picture were fading for the last year before it finally went mute.
So we're after a new TV. We could fit a 48" into the space, but Mrs J has put her foot down with a firm hand and limited me to a maximum 32". Apparently our wedding pictures are more important: a rather odd set of priorities to my mind!
Does anyone have any advice what to look for wrt features? We're thinking of up to £400. I suppose WiFi, Freeview HD, 1080p, at least two HDMI inputs and Smart.
Is there anything else I should look for? Amazon Prime compatibility perhaps?
SMART TVs are a waste of money (although I suspect the price premium is quite small these days). I would always recommend to anyone that they have a Small Form Factor PC linked to their TV instead of using any SMART features which are generally crap, slow and support from the manufacturer is dropped *very* swiftly.
You can get a reasonable 32" non-SMART but till 1080p TV for £200-£250 and add a Small Form Factor PC (which can often be bolted to the back of the TV Unit) for £150 to £200.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better
Lefties and numbers still not on speaking terms I see....
Just follow Jess Phillips twitter account, she has been ripping the piss out of momentum tonight.
She is quite a star. There are Labour MPs who can really connect with the public but none that are onside with the regime (that I know of, to be fair).
I keep meaning to do a thread on Jess Phillips as next Labour Leader thread, but realised Tissue Price would mock me mercilessly
Are you talking about the same Jess Phillips who laughed at the suggestion of mental health services targeted at men?
If so, it doesn't seem to bear that interpretation at all.
Okay - I suspect the bloke was trying to wind her up a bit - but the clip at the select committee did her no favours. In my opinion the left are too obsessed with gender, race, sexuality and the like - but this episode shed light on how they behave when the tables are turned on them.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
I voted for a candidate.
Good for you. Most people vote for parties.
I hear this a lot, but not sure where the data comes from other than confirmation bias.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally. Whatever you might like it to be under the law we vote for an individual representative. It is the reason our MPs can cross the floor. And long may it continue. Any move towards giving parties more representation in the voting system simply increases the power of the parties over our elected representatives and reduces democratic accountability.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
All ballot papers show the candidates' names. Independents by definition don't run on a party ticket.
Late to the party with @Dair saying England didn't exist until 1999, and only after that in some NHS bodies. Aren't we forgetting the Church of England?
The Established church in England and Wales? It is not an English institution hence the last Anti-Pope of the CoE was Welsh.
ER..... Neither the Province of York nor Canterbury covers Wales!
Never knew that. The wiki article is interesting and the link seems quite strangely set up as if clergy of the Church in Wales are part of the Church of England but clergy of the Church of England are not part of the Church in Wales.
However, as the Diocese of York includes a separate country, outside the United Kingdom, my point stands. The CoE is not an English institution.
Don't know if the Paris hotels thread is still live, but I used to really like staying at the Hotel de la Tremoille. (Although not been for 3 or 4 years, it looks like it hasn't changed much. And its handy location won't have!)
Late to the party with @Dair saying England didn't exist until 1999, and only after that in some NHS bodies. Aren't we forgetting the Church of England?
The Established church in England and Wales? It is not an English institution hence the last Anti-Pope of the CoE was Welsh.
ER..... Neither the Province of York nor Canterbury covers Wales!
Never knew that. The wiki article is interesting and the link seems quite strangely set up as if clergy of the Church in Wales are part of the Church of England but clergy of the Church of England are not part of the Church in Wales.
However, as the Diocese of York includes a separate country, outside the United Kingdom, my point stands. The CoE is not an English institution.
At least it doesn't rely on an inflated oil price for its future plans.....
Late to the party with @Dair saying England didn't exist until 1999, and only after that in some NHS bodies. Aren't we forgetting the Church of England?
The Established church in England and Wales? It is not an English institution hence the last Anti-Pope of the CoE was Welsh.
ER..... Neither the Province of York nor Canterbury covers Wales!
Never knew that. The wiki article is interesting and the link seems quite strangely set up as if clergy of the Church in Wales are part of the Church of England but clergy of the Church of England are not part of the Church in Wales.
However, as the Diocese of York includes a separate country, outside the United Kingdom, my point stands. The CoE is not an English institution.
Wales doesn't have an Established Church, not since 1920.
Late to the party with @Dair saying England didn't exist until 1999, and only after that in some NHS bodies. Aren't we forgetting the Church of England?
The Established church in England and Wales? It is not an English institution hence the last Anti-Pope of the CoE was Welsh.
ER..... Neither the Province of York nor Canterbury covers Wales!
Never knew that. The wiki article is interesting and the link seems quite strangely set up as if clergy of the Church in Wales are part of the Church of England but clergy of the Church of England are not part of the Church in Wales.
However, as the Diocese of York includes a separate country, outside the United Kingdom, my point stands. The CoE is not an English institution.
At least it doesn't rely on an inflated oil price for its future plans.....
Late to the party with @Dair saying England didn't exist until 1999, and only after that in some NHS bodies. Aren't we forgetting the Church of England?
The Established church in England and Wales? It is not an English institution hence the last Anti-Pope of the CoE was Welsh.
ER..... Neither the Province of York nor Canterbury covers Wales!
Never knew that. The wiki article is interesting and the link seems quite strangely set up as if clergy of the Church in Wales are part of the Church of England but clergy of the Church of England are not part of the Church in Wales.
However, as the Diocese of York includes a separate country, outside the United Kingdom, my point stands. The CoE is not an English institution.
At least it doesn't rely on an inflated oil price for its future plans.....
No, it relies on asset fire sales.
I bet you don't even like English Mustard, or Breakfast Tea, do you?
Ever thought your nationalism might be a tad hilarious when viewed from the outside?
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
I voted for a candidate.
Me too but you have to remember that, being a Scot, Dair would have been very lucky to have had a candidate worth voting for.
Just follow Jess Phillips twitter account, she has been ripping the piss out of momentum tonight.
She is quite a star. There are Labour MPs who can really connect with the public but none that are onside with the regime (that I know of, to be fair).
I keep meaning to do a thread on Jess Phillips as next Labour Leader thread, but realised Tissue Price would mock me mercilessly
Are you talking about the same Jess Phillips who laughed at the suggestion of mental health services targeted at men?
If so, it doesn't seem to bear that interpretation at all.
Okay - I suspect the bloke was trying to wind her up a bit - but the clip at the select committee did her no favours. In my opinion the left are too obsessed with gender, race, sexuality and the like - but this episode shed light on how they behave when the tables are turned on them.
I do agree that the left often obsesses about those subjects in a way that isn't helpful. I think they are very important however.
I have to admit that, as a man, I am embarrassed by the Men's Rights movement and International Men's Day strikes me as silly.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better
Lefties and numbers still not on speaking terms I see....
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
I voted for a candidate.
Good for you. Most people vote for parties.
I hear this a lot, but not sure where the data comes from other than confirmation bias.
I agree. Although PBers are hardly representative, it might be interesting to know which of us voted for a party rather than a candidate: Mr Kle4?
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
I voted for a candidate.
Good for you. Most people vote for parties.
I hear this a lot, but not sure where the data comes from other than confirmation bias.
I agree. Although PBers are hardly representative, it might be interesting to know which of us voted for a party rather than a candidate: Mr Kle4?
I went by candidate, so I voted Conservative at the GE and Labour at the locals on the same day.
Edit: thanks for the replies on TVs. Some food for thought there.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
I voted for a candidate.
Good for you. Most people vote for parties.
I hear this a lot, but not sure where the data comes from other than confirmation bias.
I agree. Although PBers are hardly representative, it might be interesting to know which of us voted for a party rather than a candidate: Mr Kle4?
I have always voted candidate rather than party. On two occasions in the past I have refused to vote for the UKIP candidate even though I was a member. I will always vote for the person I think will best represent my constituency and the party they belong to is only one factor in making that decision and certainly not the most important.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
I voted for a candidate.
Good for you. Most people vote for parties.
I hear this a lot, but not sure where the data comes from other than confirmation bias.
I agree. Although PBers are hardly representative, it might be interesting to know which of us voted for a party rather than a candidate: Mr Kle4?
Well, I voted for a party, as I have always done. I didn't know who the candidate was until I entered the polling booth and I had to Google her name when I mentioned her earlier.
I also knew she wouldn't win (she actually came fourth). I voted entirely on the basis that I sympathised with the party she stood for and the pasting it was about to get.
Jeremy Corbyn's hard Left supporters have drawn up 'Stalinist' plans to seize control of the Labour party and purge moderate MPs. A detailed blueprint for how his allies will try to oust internal critics, take over policy-making, and hold a Mao-style programme of 'political education activity' has been seen by the Daily Mail. Entitled 'Taking control of the Party', it is understood to have been written by Jon Lansman, a veteran of the Militant battles in the 1980s who is now a director of the Corbyn supporters organisation Momentum
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
I voted for a candidate.
Good for you. Most people vote for parties.
I hear this a lot, but not sure where the data comes from other than confirmation bias.
I agree. Although PBers are hardly representative, it might be interesting to know which of us voted for a party rather than a candidate: Mr Kle4?
I went by candidate, so I voted Conservative at the GE and Labour at the locals on the same day.
Edit: thanks for the replies on TVs. Some food for thought there.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
Most of us do vote for parties though. That's to say, we vote for an individual candidate but the only characteristic they have that matters is party affiliation.
We vote in arbitrary, meaningless units which no-one cares about for a selection of donkeys drawn from closed lists of one. Demographic distribution and change decides the outcome almost as much as the votes do.
Oh, and for those who can even get off their arses to participate in such a bankrupt system, for the past three elections the majority came away from the polling stations empty-handed, electing no-one...
There is no right to vote for a winner.
In fact, the definition of democracy might be: a system when sometimes you lose.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally. Whatever you might like it to be under the law we vote for an individual representative. It is the reason our MPs can cross the floor. And long may it continue. Any move towards giving parties more representation in the voting system simply increases the power of the parties over our elected representatives and reduces democratic accountability.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
I voted for a candidate.
As did I. Many factors were weighed in that decision. The identity of Party that they had opted to join was one of them because it gave extra insight into their character.
Another small positive influence for one of the two options was a positive recommendation of the individual by @Richard_Tyndall - with whom if I recall he was on at least nodding terms.
Agree with the tax point. The whole 1% meme has been a disaster for the left as it has convinced a load of people that everything would be alright if only we could tax some other very rich person. In fact to raise any significant money you need a broad tax base - which undoubtedly includes middle income (which contrary to popular belief is not that high) households. Bearing that in mind you need to either make a positive case for taxation and show you can provide better services or cut your cloth differently. The whole richard murphy/McDonnell tax gap/avoidance stuff deliberately avoids this choice, and also any reforms to public services other than increasing provider power.
One of the problems on the Left is the belief that the Tax Gap could be closed to zero, if only the people running the country did it right. The howls of indignation in the media any time a well known company "pays no tax" - often because it's made a loss, or is offsetting previous losses - are a sign of the number of useful idiots. There's a mindset that "tax dodgers" and the grey/black economy can all somehow be brought within the HMRC aegis, which is as stupid as thinking that just because we have a police force, the crime rate could be cut to zero if only resources were deployed properly. The truth is we will never collect all tax that is legally owed, and we will always fall a long way short of collecting all tax that is "morally owed, in the opinion of left-leaning people". Even changing the law is no panacea to the stuff that Richard Murphy would like to tax, because changes in law - duly proclaimed as intending to harvest £X billion of cash - will be followed by changes in behaviour. You can't just look at the tax gap and think "easy pickings there".
A similar illusion on the Right is the belief that public services are dripping with flab, and that their budgets and payrolls can be slashed with almost no pain and no effect on end users. There are clearly plenty of ridiculous uses of government money, and far more with a questionable evidence base for its effectiveness. But budgeting on the basis of all the "efficiency savings" you are going to make is dangerous, because in practice very few can be realised.
We need a much more grown up debate about taxing and spending but I don't think it's going to materialise any time soon.
Well, I voted for a party, as I have always done. I didn't know who the candidate was until I entered the polling booth and I had to Google her name when I mentioned her earlier.
I also knew she wouldn't win (she actually came fourth). I voted entirely on the basis that I sympathised with the party she stood for and the pasting it was about to get.
You sound like you voted the same way I did. Being in a safe Labour seat with a total tit of a Labour candidate gave me the opportunity.
I have in the past voted for a candidate (Darren Johnson, the only one who bothered to reply to an emailed question) as well as against a candidate (the anti-semitic bigot Martin Linton).
There are three distinct purposes of a general election:
(1) Elect a local representative in the sense of "I need to write to my MP about that". This is an intrinsically non-partisan role.
(2) Elect a party political representative in the legislature.
(3) Elect a national government.
The problem is that no single voting system is suited to do all three.
More optimistically, it's possible that those beliefs prove transitory, even if they're only replaced by equally egregious mistakes.
Once upon a time politicians seriously proposed that a glut of spending on the NHS would pay for itself, because the British workforce was unfit and raising its health levels would make the economy more productive, and besides, people who'd previously had to pay to go to see a doctor and therefore hadn't gone were in a pretty bad shape. With free treatment on the NHS they would all become far healthier, and therefore wouldn't be needing the NHS so much again. Trebles all round!
But of course in reality people are not so readily satiated with health care, and the demographics of making people live longer comes back to bite you in terms of costs later on. This is a home truth that politicians have generally realised, and I have almost never heard "extra spending on the NHS will pay for itself" arguments issued even when the previous government was sloshing money into the NHS. Perhaps politicians will eventually quit making bogus arguments about "collecting all the tax that's due/cutting the fat" as well.
I think people are more likely to vote for a candidate in local elections. If they are any good they may live in he ward and know and be known to many people. Much more likely to vote for a party in the GE and of course Euros where basically you vote for a party.
His comments are revealed in files released by the National Archives which include a host of revelations about the workings of government in the 1980s.
They show that Mr Letwin – then an adviser in Margaret Thatcher’s No 10 policy unit – blamed “bad moral attitudes” for the major disturbances which broke out in mainly black inner city areas.
He poured scorn on claims the unrest was the product of urban deprivation. He also dismissed proposals by ministers to foster a new middle class of black entrepreneurs, saying they would simply set up in the “disco and drug trade”.
His remarks have been condemned by Labour shadow minister John Ashworth who called on Mr Letwin – now a Cabinet Office minister – to apologise.
His comments are revealed in files released by the National Archives which include a host of revelations about the workings of government in the 1980s.
They show that Mr Letwin – then an adviser in Margaret Thatcher’s No 10 policy unit – blamed “bad moral attitudes” for the major disturbances which broke out in mainly black inner city areas.
He poured scorn on claims the unrest was the product of urban deprivation. He also dismissed proposals by ministers to foster a new middle class of black entrepreneurs, saying they would simply set up in the “disco and drug trade”.
His remarks have been condemned by Labour shadow minister John Ashworth who called on Mr Letwin – now a Cabinet Office minister – to apologise.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally. Whatever you might like it to be under the law we vote for an individual representative. It is the reason our MPs can cross the floor. And long may it continue. Any move towards giving parties more representation in the voting system simply increases the power of the parties over our elected representatives and reduces democratic accountability.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
Do you interpret the Lib Dem wipeout, then, as simply disillusionment with those 49 individuals?
Margaret Thatcher is reputed to have said, in a moment of t them to have the courage of my convictions.'
That's the difference between the Right and (some of) the Left. The Right - even the very Right like Thatcher - understand that there are other points of view. The Corbynistas just can't comprehend how anyone can have a different opinion to their's.
That's fect.
While that does apply to Corbynites one only has to read through any PB thread to realise that isn't the sole prerogative of the left.
It's true in the right, but much rarer. We have one or two on here who I think might be CCHQ bots.
Could this possibly ever so slightly be a case of seeing only the mote in your neighbour's eye?
I think it is probably as much that we see the worst of the 'other' side through social media, but lots of normal (and not adversarial) people from our own side in our day to day lives. Having said that a lot of labour activists are self righteous. it depresses me how all labour speeches have to begin with 'baby eating Tories/24 hours to save the NHS/bedroom tax/food banks' if only because it is talking to ourselves and the electorate aren't particularly bothered.
Since we are also talking about people voting for the candidate not the party, anyone who has canvassed knows that there are a hardcore of people out there who are aware of candidates, and when you pit a duff candidate against a good one it can make a big difference.
The labour candidate in a neighbouring constituency pretty much responded to every question with the baby eating tories/bedroom tax/zero hours contracts. She was woeful and out of her depth. The Conservative candidate (and sitting MP on a sub 1,000 majority) was a complete contrast. Quiet, respectable, and focused much of his efforts on promoting business and cooperation between the different public institutions and local businesses.
He came across as thoughtful and competent. This cut through to those who genuinely make their mind up based on candidates. I had repeated canvasses in which reference was made to the Labour candidate and how she couldnt possibly be allowed to win, by people we has down in the past as labour voters, admittedly though Ed Milliband was a much bigger factor.
The Conservatives tripled their majority. In the constituency next door, the Tory candidate who got elected in 2010 took an 11,000 majority to a 20,000 majority. Candidates do matter!
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
F.
N
P.
I
Gs.
I hs.
I agree. Although PBers are hardly representative, it might be interesting to know which of us voted for a party rather than a candidate: Mr Kle4?
I generally vote mostly on party basis - given most electoral literature I've seen, in my area at least, barely mentions anything local even in local elections, or anything that doesn't seem a nationally crafted message. Who the local candidate is does not seem vital in most places, not least because it is rarely indicated which wing of a particular party someone is on. Although at the GE I did actually know the one of the candidates vaguely.
However I find the fact people will change their mind about whether they support a policy depending on who they think is proposing it is a pretty decent indication most of us give primacy to what we think the party line is when supporting something, and that would extend to candidates. The party brand is most important, and a good candidate can make the difference in a tight race, but the best Labour candidate in the world is not winning in my neck of the woods against the proverbial donkey in a blue rosette, and the same is true in reverse in many many places. We lean in certain political directions, and we often don't even know (even when we think we do) if the party we lean to supports specific policies we do, and certainly not if the specific candidate does. It's one reason the party leader is so important - how often do we hear 'I voted for Miliband/Cameron' when as pedants point out, only people in their constituency did? Because the party brand, personified a great deal by the leaders, was more important than whether Tory no name in the shires is a Cameroon or neo-Thatcherite.
I would like if we voted purely on candidate basis, it's one reason I dislike party politics in policing with the PCCs (sure, some indys got in, but in most swing areas, national politics will decide things, not their performance in that job), but I just do not see it, except on a purely technical basis. Good night all.
Its reached the point that there's no way Benn will be demoted now, even if they had intended to. If Corbyn did, I would have to admit he has got damn fine big hard steel balls.....
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
But it's crap. If it were true, how come only 19% can name their MP?
They vote for Cameron/Tories, etc, and whoever is on the closed list of one in a demographically advantageous constituency gets elected by the coattails effect [well 90% of the time].
People can spend literally their whole lives casting meaningless ballots, which might only become meaningful if they choose to move, or the boundary commissioners latch on to some unusual squiggle.
When are we going to stop pretending that Turkey is an ally and admit that it is at best, a neighbour, and at worst, an historic enemy - and that good fences = good neighbours.
I wonder in which country the Caliphate was based prior to 1924....
Normally politics is very quiet during the Christmas period. Jez is ruining the Christmas of many political journalists and political watchers. The Git.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
But it's crap. If it were true, how come only 19% can name their MP?
They vote for Cameron/Tories, etc, and whoever is on the closed list of one in a demographically advantageous constituency gets elected by the coattails effect [well 90% of the time].
People can spend literally their whole lives casting meaningless ballots, which might only become meaningful if they choose to move, or the boundary commissioners latch on to some unusual squiggle.
That is outrageous.
Names are published on the ballot papers for each constituency.
Notme@10.58. I agree I think candidates can cut through, particularly where their strengths chime with the overall messaging as in your example. On the other hand you can lose some very good MPs (and particularly councillors) when there is an electoral tidal wave against you.
Normally politics is very quiet during the Christmas period. Jez is ruining the Christmas of many political journalists and political watchers. The Git.
Let's be honest this isn't him is it? He's an idiot figurehead and this is a battle of strength within his coterie
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
But it's crap. If it were true, how come only 19% can name their MP?
They vote for Cameron/Tories, etc, and whoever is on the closed list of one in a demographically advantageous constituency gets elected by the coattails effect [well 90% of the time].
People can spend literally their whole lives casting meaningless ballots, which might only become meaningful if they choose to move, or the boundary commissioners latch on to some unusual squiggle.
That is outrageous.
Names are published on the ballot papers for each constituency.
People look for the "Labour" brand or logo, etc. then scratch their mark.
And for every 1% of swing ,13 buggers get turfed out, and 13 buggers get swept in (more or less) in the tiny number of seats where the demographic balance is tight enough to put the outcome in question...
The "Affluenza" teen and his mother have been arrested in Puerto Vallarta and the little bugger's ass is being dragged back to Fort Worth.
At age 16 he killed 4 people while driving drunk. In his defense he said that his wealthy parents had not taught him the difference between right and wrong. The judge gave him 10 years probation.
He then fled probation when he and his mother went to Mexico. The max he can get is 120 days in the big house.
A long time back, Butler and King did research that suggested that I think 5-10% of voters will vote against party inclination if they really like/dislike a candidate, and my guess is that it's much the same now.
But I'd guess that it's possible to make it more common, and it's our habit of thinking in party terms that gets in the way. The "Conservatives for Palmer" effort in 2010 was small in numbers (a few dozen people, mostly just putting up posters in their gardens), mostly linked to an evangelical church who liked what they felt were honest answers to a survey that they sent to candidates, but the idea was to give a larger number of Tory voters the idea that it was an option worth considering. However, some local Labour people felt distinctly uncomfortable with it, and only went along with it as the seat was clearly at risk.
I think it worked up to a point - the swing in 2010 was much lower than average. By 2015 I'd been away for years and a third of the electorate had changed, so the personal vote had largely evaporated.
Comments
It is however a comparatively small demographic. On their own, particularly after a few more years of shrinkage, they will not swing any election outside London and possibly other cities with a big public sector workforce, e.g. Bristol, Manchester and Newcastle.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/12072476/Lemmy-Motorhead-frontman-obituary.html
Now the slightly less pragmatic, but not insane types are seeing Corbyn for what he truly is and dissenting. There are still a lot of batshit insane leftists who think Corbyn is good for Labour and the leftist cause when he is clearly neither.
How many times have you seen the likes of chilon, surbiton or IoS post with glee when the government do something stupid that has people on the right in open warfare. I remember when I posted that I would be voting UKIP in the London Assembly elections IoS was happy that the right was "tearing itself apart". Recently I have seen that on the left, but it's mostly from people who were already wary of Ed.
The right treats politics much less like a religion, I don't think that is arguable.
Good night, all.
I know this is obvious but at the last election it seemed to be brushed under the carpet by both Labour and the Lib Dems who were offering me a multitude of goodies all funded by the Mansion Tax. And as a voter it's not hard to conclude "Yeah, that Mansion Tax is going to raise FA and then you will come after me."
This is also asymmetric. The Conservatives can get away with unfunded spending pledges more easily than Labour, on the Nixon-goes-to-China principle.
So it can only really go downhill from here.
A basic expectation that the voting system should reflect how people vote in some way should be the most basic tenet of a democratic system.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dioceses_of_Church_of_England.svg
If so, it doesn't seem to bear that interpretation at all.
You can get a reasonable 32" non-SMART but till 1080p TV for £200-£250 and add a Small Form Factor PC (which can often be bolted to the back of the TV Unit) for £150 to £200.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
However, as the Diocese of York includes a separate country, outside the United Kingdom, my point stands. The CoE is not an English institution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_in_Wales
http://www.tremoille.com/uk/index.php
Ever thought your nationalism might be a tad hilarious when viewed from the outside?
I have to admit that, as a man, I am embarrassed by the Men's Rights movement and International Men's Day strikes me as silly.
Edit: thanks for the replies on TVs. Some food for thought there.
I also knew she wouldn't win (she actually came fourth). I voted entirely on the basis that I sympathised with the party she stood for and the pasting it was about to get.
Jeremy Corbyn's hard Left supporters have drawn up 'Stalinist' plans to seize control of the Labour party and purge moderate MPs.
A detailed blueprint for how his allies will try to oust internal critics, take over policy-making, and hold a Mao-style programme of 'political education activity' has been seen by the Daily Mail.
Entitled 'Taking control of the Party', it is understood to have been written by Jon Lansman, a veteran of the Militant battles in the 1980s who is now a director of the Corbyn supporters organisation Momentum
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3378067/Hard-Left-s-Stalinist-plot-seize-control-Labour-Detailed-blueprint-Corbyn-s-supporters-try-oust-critics-policy-making-hold-Mao-style-political-education-activity-programme.html#ixzz3vkctoj96
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7S46X2nP-c
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/681965313311768576
In fact, the definition of democracy might be: a system when sometimes you lose.
Hasn't he just been given the job to look at future flood defence plans?
Another small positive influence for one of the two options was a positive recommendation of the individual by @Richard_Tyndall - with whom if I recall he was on at least nodding terms.
A similar illusion on the Right is the belief that public services are dripping with flab, and that their budgets and payrolls can be slashed with almost no pain and no effect on end users. There are clearly plenty of ridiculous uses of government money, and far more with a questionable evidence base for its effectiveness. But budgeting on the basis of all the "efficiency savings" you are going to make is dangerous, because in practice very few can be realised.
We need a much more grown up debate about taxing and spending but I don't think it's going to materialise any time soon.
I have in the past voted for a candidate (Darren Johnson, the only one who bothered to reply to an emailed question) as well as against a candidate (the anti-semitic bigot Martin Linton).
There are three distinct purposes of a general election:
(1) Elect a local representative in the sense of "I need to write to my MP about that". This is an intrinsically non-partisan role.
(2) Elect a party political representative in the legislature.
(3) Elect a national government.
The problem is that no single voting system is suited to do all three.
Once upon a time politicians seriously proposed that a glut of spending on the NHS would pay for itself, because the British workforce was unfit and raising its health levels would make the economy more productive, and besides, people who'd previously had to pay to go to see a doctor and therefore hadn't gone were in a pretty bad shape. With free treatment on the NHS they would all become far healthier, and therefore wouldn't be needing the NHS so much again. Trebles all round!
But of course in reality people are not so readily satiated with health care, and the demographics of making people live longer comes back to bite you in terms of costs later on. This is a home truth that politicians have generally realised, and I have almost never heard "extra spending on the NHS will pay for itself" arguments issued even when the previous government was sloshing money into the NHS. Perhaps politicians will eventually quit making bogus arguments about "collecting all the tax that's due/cutting the fat" as well.
They show that Mr Letwin – then an adviser in Margaret Thatcher’s No 10 policy unit – blamed “bad moral attitudes” for the major disturbances which broke out in mainly black inner city areas.
He poured scorn on claims the unrest was the product of urban deprivation. He also dismissed proposals by ministers to foster a new middle class of black entrepreneurs, saying they would simply set up in the “disco and drug trade”.
His remarks have been condemned by Labour shadow minister John Ashworth who called on Mr Letwin – now a Cabinet Office minister – to apologise.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/630176/David-Cameron-policy-chief-Oliver-Letwin-offensive-London-riots-remarks
Disco is awesome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmS4po8hIeo
The labour candidate in a neighbouring constituency pretty much responded to every question with the baby eating tories/bedroom tax/zero hours contracts. She was woeful and out of her depth. The Conservative candidate (and sitting MP on a sub 1,000 majority) was a complete contrast. Quiet, respectable, and focused much of his efforts on promoting business and cooperation between the different public institutions and local businesses.
He came across as thoughtful and competent. This cut through to those who genuinely make their mind up based on candidates. I had repeated canvasses in which reference was made to the Labour candidate and how she couldnt possibly be allowed to win, by people we has down in the past as labour voters, admittedly though Ed Milliband was a much bigger factor.
The Conservatives tripled their majority. In the constituency next door, the Tory candidate who got elected in 2010 took an 11,000 majority to a 20,000 majority. Candidates do matter!
However I find the fact people will change their mind about whether they support a policy depending on who they think is proposing it is a pretty decent indication most of us give primacy to what we think the party line is when supporting something, and that would extend to candidates. The party brand is most important, and a good candidate can make the difference in a tight race, but the best Labour candidate in the world is not winning in my neck of the woods against the proverbial donkey in a blue rosette, and the same is true in reverse in many many places. We lean in certain political directions, and we often don't even know (even when we think we do) if the party we lean to supports specific policies we do, and certainly not if the specific candidate does. It's one reason the party leader is so important - how often do we hear 'I voted for Miliband/Cameron' when as pedants point out, only people in their constituency did? Because the party brand, personified a great deal by the leaders, was more important than whether Tory no name in the shires is a Cameroon or neo-Thatcherite.
I would like if we voted purely on candidate basis, it's one reason I dislike party politics in policing with the PCCs (sure, some indys got in, but in most swing areas, national politics will decide things, not their performance in that job), but I just do not see it, except on a purely technical basis.
Good night all.
They vote for Cameron/Tories, etc, and whoever is on the closed list of one in a demographically advantageous constituency gets elected by the coattails effect [well 90% of the time].
People can spend literally their whole lives casting meaningless ballots, which might only become meaningful if they choose to move, or the boundary commissioners latch on to some unusual squiggle.
That is outrageous.
GOP
Trump 33%
Cruz 20%
Rubio 11%
Dems
Clinton 50%
Sanders 27%
https://politicalwire.com/2015/12/29/trump-leads-in-nevada/
Rumours include replacing Hilary Benn with Diane Abbott
Good luck Labour, you will need it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264406-pataki-to-drop-out-report
And for every 1% of swing ,13 buggers get turfed out, and 13 buggers get swept in (more or less) in the tiny number of seats where the demographic balance is tight enough to put the outcome in question...
The "Affluenza" teen and his mother have been arrested in Puerto Vallarta and the little bugger's ass is being dragged back to Fort Worth.
At age 16 he killed 4 people while driving drunk. In his defense he said that his wealthy parents had not taught him the difference between right and wrong. The judge gave him 10 years probation.
He then fled probation when he and his mother went to Mexico. The max he can get is 120 days in the big house.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/29/us/affluenza-teen-ethan-couch-detained-in-mexico/
But I'd guess that it's possible to make it more common, and it's our habit of thinking in party terms that gets in the way. The "Conservatives for Palmer" effort in 2010 was small in numbers (a few dozen people, mostly just putting up posters in their gardens), mostly linked to an evangelical church who liked what they felt were honest answers to a survey that they sent to candidates, but the idea was to give a larger number of Tory voters the idea that it was an option worth considering. However, some local Labour people felt distinctly uncomfortable with it, and only went along with it as the seat was clearly at risk.
I think it worked up to a point - the swing in 2010 was much lower than average. By 2015 I'd been away for years and a third of the electorate had changed, so the personal vote had largely evaporated.