|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Mar 21, 2023 14:55:37 GMT
But the LDs were to the left of Labour under Charles Kennedy - which is why I voted for them in 2001 and 2005. How long did that last? I'm currently only focussed on getting rid of the tories. Whatever comes after the next GE can be worried about then and will in any case inevitably be far better especially on relations with Europe. , I understand where you're coming from.
Personally, I'm more on the vote for something side. I know many who did vote LD for ABT tactical reasons in '10 and ended up bitterly regretting it. If you were someone who had been paying attention back then, it was clear the then LD leadership were closer to Cameron and more likely to get into bed with the Tories than Labour (on a personal level Clegg despised Brown and he originally was a Tory). A lot still viewed them as the party of Kennedy and weren't aware of the Orange booker take over. So I also understand the reluctance of many to 'lend' their vote to the LDs
The LD's may be closer to Labour now than they were back then - but a lot of 'Lab voters' just wont vote for them due to austerity and the coalition.
In regards to Labour voters and the LD strategy of trying to squeeze it in some suburban seats, what many fail to realise is that even in seats in areas such as Surrey, a lot of the Lab vote is still made up of its traditional wc base (its not all liberal minded champagne socialist like me) - many of whom are more socially conservative but economically left and may associate the LDs with austerity. For these voters its more Lab or Con - and immigration does tend to be a factor for them.
This is why FPTP is such a bugger - and works to the benefit of both the Lab and Con parties. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Mar 21, 2023 14:56:33 GMT
I'm not sure Rowley does believe it to be honest but suspect that he feels he has to say it. He is repeating the same mistake that Cressida Dick made, with the short-term objective of keeping the troops onside over-riding the survival chances of the Met. Maybe he has his head in the sand and still feels that rather like those banks in 2008, the Met is too big to fail. Just as likely, he's calculating that if he if can mount a rear-guard action and get to retirement, before what increasingly feels like the inevitable demise of the Met, then he will have had a result. The report has not changed my previously stated opinion. There is no possibility of reform from within for the Met, it is not only institutionally racist, it is institutionally corrupt in deliberate and clear intentional efforts to undermine reforms and government oversight. It needs to be broken up and replaced with new policing bodies that do not result in a 'too big to fail' police force controlling both local policing over a massive area, and national security force duties. Those currently serving as Met officers should have to go through serious and comprehensive vetting before being employed by any other police force. The Met Police Federation (the equivalent of a trade union for the Met police) must also take their share of the blame. They have known at least since the Lawrence enquiry of the level of institutional racism in the Met and done nothing about it. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Mar 21, 2023 14:57:22 GMT
I can see the point in needing to replace CT and MRI scanners as technology for these is continuing to improve, but throwing out a standard X-ray machine just because it is over 10 years old is wasteful. I would like to know where NHS England's advice to replace 10 year-old X-ray machines comes from. It's so that the commie bureaucrats in NHS England can say they can't afford to replace them because of government 'cuts'. 🤣[banter] |
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Mar 21, 2023 14:59:02 GMT
Dave I suspect the Met is too large to be broken up however more area or district control is a possibility. The other elephant in the room is if people are running around saying how shit existing officers are who exactly do they expect to replace them with. There is no reason why the Met has to be as large or as multi-disciplined as it is. Certainly not to the extent that every single Met officer gets jurisdiction and authority throughout the entirity of England and Wales over anything they deem fit... Here's a quick list of the branches of the Met that could be entirely cleaved from them - - Royal, Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection
- Aviation Security Operational Unit
- Protective Security Operations (security arrangements in place for major events, crowded places, iconic sites and that key utilities and sites where hazardous substances)
- Counter Terrorism Command (or just abolished and duties transferred over to The Security Service, which would also prevent arguments over jurisdiction causing preventable disasters)
- Roads and Transport Policing Command
- All the rest of Met Operations that should be a national concern unrelated to a London Police Force.
|
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,010
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Mar 21, 2023 15:02:36 GMT
Wondered how long it would take crayon man to emerge. Ed Davey received a knighthood in 2016 primarily because of his service as climate change minister. What did you get for backing Brexit and enabling the worst government in living memory? I find it's best to keep things at that level for you. "Ed Davey received a knighthood in 2016 primarily because of his service as climate change minister" - Yes, in a Tory* led coalition as I stated. * although you prefer terms like "Fascist" and "Scumbag". |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 15:14:39 GMT
jayblancYou would primarily end up with a highway patrol, local municipal police and a national police service akin to the FBI plus specialist units such as the Secret Service,I am not remotely certain that adopting the American pattern of police organisations would improve the situation. Incidentally Scotland went in entirely the opposite direction and incorporated all its police forces into Police Scotland and similar applies in PSNI there's no intrinsic reason why bigger is worse. As to vetting all serving Met Police officers 90%+ of whom have done nothing wrong would be an excellent way of losing a quarter of all officers who have reached the age when their extended service is voluntary ( 55) or Ill health (50) and can retire on full pension. Good luck with replacing them with new officers who have to go through a three year degree apprenticeship at not much more than minimum wage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 15:16:42 GMT
- Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection
- .
...aka "overtime Command" as Casey discovered. officers joined " to pay for their weddings and top up their pensions"-and when not "gaming the system" *, engaging in the "flourishing" Discrimination & Bullying. Casey recommended effective disbandment of this cosey club for the macho boys in blue. * and "splurging" money on "pointless equipment" |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 15:21:37 GMT
jibI've never described you as a fascist or a scumbag, I doubt you are, I do however use those accurate but pejorative terms to describe the regime you enabled and so often excuse from any culpability. I've also never found it necessary to make up crap about imagined benefits or a purely fictional European super state or be obsessed with relatively minor political decisions over a decade ago that are designed solely to deflect from you making a galactically stupid decision to diminish our country and steal our own civil rights. I can use smaller words if it would help you to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by davwel on Mar 21, 2023 15:25:02 GMT
Poor management of big databases may well have been partly responsible for the problems of the SNP (membership decline - when, what persons, what areas, how to report or not), the London police (officer behaviour, wrongdoing and pinpointing staff in trouble), the NHS, as wwas discussed here for Scotland a few days back, (to improve efficiency and avoid duplication and long journeys).
Old Nat helpfully suggested that creating a big person-centred database, could be tried in Wales rather than Scotalnd since its size would be less, though I suspected he also wanted to draw attention to Labour not managing the Welsh NHS well (his view; I simply do not know).
This came into my mind since this morning I was sent a very big database by NatScot for one special habitat of rare plant occurrences. There are c. 25 columns and tens of thousands of rows. What external users need to know are 1. species, 2. date seen, 3. place seen and situation, 4. observer, 5. identifier, and 6, if a specimen, in what herbarium. Refinements are in which NatScot region and which vice county, and extra columns to deal with changes in person names (estate owners often changing these for inheritance purpose), place names (Engl/Gaelic; developments, so names can/have evolve(d) rapidly in 100 years), and also herbarium collections being broken-up and moved.
I was dismayed on opening the file about the frequency of blanks, so my needs were not answered. I spoke to the present keeper of the database.
He sighed. If only ... I will try getting in touch with the likely compilers; keep my fingers crossed.
But if someone was entering herbarium data, it would have been so easy to name the herbaria and person source. This failure of supervision, or forgetfulness, inattention to detail, seems to me to be a chronic UK failing. I have suggested for NHS Scotland better personal databases, and argued that Humza Yousof could have delivered or at least set them in motion. ONat argued this not a minister`s job, but I think it should be for the top class of UK ministers- they should not just be competent but inspirational in sorting problems. And nag and regularly point out users` needs, not just compilers` ease
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 21, 2023 15:28:57 GMT
Seats changing hands and the projected national share of the vote are typically what the media get excited about. The latter is a dubious number, partly for the reason James E reminds us of (Lib Dem local strength v Labour), but also because of the multitude of Independents and localists, whose vote is hard to classify. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Mar 21, 2023 15:30:40 GMT
Dave I suspect the Met is too large to be broken up however more area or district control is a possibility. The other elephant in the room is if people are running around saying how shit existing officers are who exactly do they expect to replace them with. There is no reason why the Met has to be as large or as multi-disciplined as it is. Certainly not to the extent that every single Met officer gets jurisdiction and authority throughout the entirity of England and Wales over anything they deem fit... Here's a quick list of the branches of the Met that could be entirely cleaved from them - - Royal, Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection
- Aviation Security Operational Unit
- Protective Security Operations (security arrangements in place for major events, crowded places, iconic sites and that key utilities and sites where hazardous substances)
- Counter Terrorism Command (or just abolished and duties transferred over to The Security Service, which would also prevent arguments over jurisdiction causing preventable disasters)
- Roads and Transport Policing Command
- All the rest of Met Operations that should be a national concern unrelated to a London Police Force.
Would probably work as well as the railways after privatisation. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 21, 2023 15:34:20 GMT
graham I stand corrected on your support . However you are simply wrong on the numbers for a rainbow coalition. Including all parties that could, but wouldn't necessarily have (SNP PC) supported Labour( excluding northern Ireland unionists who wouldn't and SF who don't take their seats) you get to a maximum of 320 a working majority of 1 would have required 321.It would have immediately been labelled the losers coalition. Absolutely zero chance of it lasting five years. If Labour had managed to lose 50 rather than 90 seats I suspect something could have been worked out a Labour lib dem majority around 20. Given that Brown had promised AV without a referendum and a referendum on PR if Clegg and his Orange bookers had suggested the Tories instead he would have been thrown out No - the numbers were there in 2010 - 258 Lab + 57 LD + 3 SDLP + 3 Plaid + 6 SNP + 1 Green +1 Alliance gives a total of 329. The Independent Sylvia Hermon was also a likely supporter. You have to remember that Labour had been in power for 13 years and had just 'lost' the election. I don't think that arrangement would have been politically viable at the time nor would have been at all stable. The only realistic alternative was a Tory minority government, which wouldn't have lasted long. Cameron would have called another election not long after and probably won it, but this would still have been preferable to the coalition. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Mar 21, 2023 16:10:12 GMT
shevii "Lib Dems main problem in their lumpy vote translating into more seats is that they aren't really in that strong a position in the seats you might think they had a chance of the ABT vote (I guess mostly the 50 seats they held pre Clegg meltdown plus some new blue wall) and in many cases having to jump from 3rd to 1st even if they are the only ones likely to beat the Tories in those seats..." The LibDems have had a number of by-election wins from 3rd place, but I can't recall them ever doing so in a General Election. And it seems to me highly unlikely that they will in 2024. Polling cross-breaks show them losing 30-45% of their 2019 voters to Labour, while regional cross-breaks and polling such as R&W's 'Blue Wall' show the largest Labour progress in exactly the places where they have traditionally been weakest - especially the South-West. R&W South West England average 12 polls from 3 Jan to 19 March Lab 47% (+24) Con 26% (-27) LD 15% (-3) To give some examples of seats that I think now are realistic Labour targets, I'd go for Weston-Super-Mare, which was an LD seat from 1997-2005. The current Conserative majority of 31% is right in line with their lead in the whole SW region in 2019. Other 'non-traditional' targets in the SW region would be St Austell and Newquay (also needing a 15% swing) and Somerset North (14%). www.electionpolling.co.uk/constituencies/uk-parliament/weston-super-mare St.Ives is about the only 'obvious' seat in 'proper'* SW.England where LDEM are the best ABCON but in the other seats they likely still have a strong local presence are unlikely to want to abandon the region to LAB (ie quite a few where a split ABCON vote might keep the seat 'Blue') Have you looked into Midlands and the North (England)? EG in NW the LDEM 'lumps' are in Farron's seat plus just two others: Hazel Grove and Cheadle. The two LDEM 'misses' in GE'19 saw a lot of LAB switch to LDEM. There is room for a bit more tactical voting in some seats but a lot of tactical voting occurred in GE'17 and GE'19 (despite Corbyn). EG Manchester Withington. LDEM seat in 2005 and 2010 but now very safe LAB with LDEM down to 15.1% in the last GE. Any further 'tactical voting' in that one will just make it even safer LAB. In the NE then Berwick-Upon-Tweed (fairly safe Lib then LDEM until 2015) could benefit from LDEM tactically voting LAB but elsewhere there is very little LDEM vote left to squeeze. So LDEM votes at seat level is already quite lumpy (same for SLIB in Scotland). TBC if it gets even lumpier or goes a bit runny (eg if Davey decides to make any effort at all to improve LDEM's national % rather than see them squeezed into hoping to win maybe 20 seats and give up everywhere else) * Cheltenham is not IMO 'proper' SW but is considered to be one of the easier LDEM gains.. unless some of the LAB->LDEM tactical voting was to unwind (eg in GE'19 then LAB vote went down by 4.6% and LDEM went up by 4.1%; also Green's didn't compete but that is 2-5% of the vote that LDEM are probably also benefiting from in that specific seat). Similar story in seats like Guildford, Winchester and most of the 'near misses' for LDEM in GE'19 - a lot of historic tactical voting that might reverse but not that much LAB/Green vote for LDEM to 'squeeze'. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Mar 21, 2023 16:12:17 GMT
Meanwhile, the bastards are unhappy - www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/21/hardline-tory-mps-reject-sunaks-northern-ireland-brexit-planOne wonders where Johnson will go with this, if he is still there by then. There is a sect anxiously awaiting a Messiah, and who better to lead the blind from their benighted Land of Fiction than a blonde, lying bullshitter? Less prosaically, I am reminded of the odd poster or two on here that suggested 'Rishi' had done a great job by overturning the EU's deep red lines in the Windsor Agreement negotiations, shoving the combined might of the 27 back across the channel and protecting the integrity of the whole of the UK. Even the ERG Loony Lawyers can see, however, that the Commission got what they wanted, after grinding the UK down in the talks to the point where we had to accept the obvious. Sunak's 'masterly negotiation' was merely adding some grace while capitulating to the inevitable. With a couple of shiny bells added for the tabloids. One wonders what the ERG will do next. They can't leave the EU again. |
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,010
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Mar 21, 2023 16:13:23 GMT
jib I've never described you as a fascist or a scumbag, I doubt you are, I do however use those accurate but pejorative terms to describe the regime you enabled and so often excuse from any culpability. I've also never found it necessary to make up crap about imagined benefits or a purely fictional European super state or be obsessed with relatively minor political decisions over a decade ago that are designed solely to deflect from you making a galactically stupid decision to diminish our country and steal our own civil rights. I can use smaller words if it would help you to understand. Classic deflection from a yellow Tory. Get this straight - had Clegg not enabled Cameron and austerity, there would never have been a referendum. Had the Remain side accepted the result, there could have been a better outcome - Norway+. Had the Lib Dems not granted Johnson his election...... All ifs and buts, but if it help your delusionary reality to blame one voter amongst millions...... |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Mar 21, 2023 16:16:27 GMT
A delightful deconstruction by David Allen Green of the Johnson defence
Today's textual power lifting challenge has been won by "did not turn out to be correct" in Johnson's "It is of course true that my statements to Parliament that the Rules and Guidance had been followed at all times did not turn out to be correct"
The next trophy is for the joint winner of the misdirection and argument from silence contests:
"There is not a single document that indicates that I received any warning or advice that any event broke or may have broken the Rules or Guidance."
This is world-class disingenuity
You have to pay a lot of money for textual-crafting of this international standard.
Almost every sentence is beautiful, in its way.
And - twenty-five uses of "clear"
Given this excuse could be used by almost anyone anywhere facing any sanction then please take a moment to appreciate this gem:
"There is not a single document that indicates that I received any warning or advice that any event broke or may have broken the Rules or Guidance."
That Johnson statement is such a magnificent work of artificial beauty that it should be entered into the Turner Prize.
The crafting of almost every sentence is gorgeous. And that has cost the taxpayer £200,000 |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Mar 21, 2023 16:22:21 GMT
New from YG. Update of their CoL segments reaction to the budget. With Energy prices going to drop from July and other inflation likely to slow down (possibly reverse) then some of the worried/squeezed folks should feel a bit better later this year but note in the tabs that the tide has started to turn - albeit from a very long way out (eg gov handling of economy is now -40 (+8), state of economy -67 (+15), household finances -39 (+21), etc)
?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Mar 21, 2023 16:26:33 GMT
The R&W projection is, as they acknowledge, flawed but it is still worthwhile.
In 2019 they projected Lab 31%, Tory 31%, LD 17%, UKIP 4% others 17% (Independents and Greens I guess).
They are suggesting current polls imply a swing of around 6% based on Lab underperforming national polls by 10% and the Tories getting around that level.
This equates to a 22% polling lead for Lab, so 48/26 for example would produce 38/26 projection which is a 6% swing on the 31/31 in 2019.
Essentially they are implying that while a 6% swing (36/26) could be presented as good for the Tories, as 10% is a much smaller deficit than current polling, it is around expectations.
Personally I think a a 22% lead for Lab is probably on the high end of current polling so we may see something smaller than 6%.
However, turnout could be lower among Tories this time - lets wait and see?
I said last spring/summer that I expected 5% projected lead for Lab in these locals but the Truss period has increase my expectation to near 10.
Above 10% would be a very good result for Lab, below 6% disappointing with, therefore, anything in the 6-10% range satisfactory.
NB) Lib Dems achieving 17% again would be decent but only a standard local performance; and, FWIW I think the Greens will do better this time and warrant their own %age in the projection.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 21, 2023 16:27:40 GMT
No - the numbers were there in 2010 - 258 Lab + 57 LD + 3 SDLP + 3 Plaid + 6 SNP + 1 Green +1 Alliance gives a total of 329. The Independent Sylvia Hermon was also a likely supporter. You have to remember that Labour had been in power for 13 years and had just 'lost' the election. I don't think that arrangement would have been politically viable at the time nor would have been at all stable. The only realistic alternative was a Tory minority government, which wouldn't have lasted long. Cameron would have called another election not long after and probably won it, but this would still have been preferable to the coalition. The point re - Cameron calling another election is often made but I am not persuaded that the constitutional basis for it is sound. The Monarch would be likely to refuse a request for another Dissolution if there was a realistic possibility of an alternative Government being formed from the existing House of Commons. Given the parliamentary arithmetic an alternative Government was available - ie if Cameron did not wish to carry on , Ed Milliband could have headed a Rainbow Coalition or a Minority Government supported by the various smaller parties. |
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Mar 21, 2023 16:39:02 GMT
Had the Remain side accepted the result, there could have been a better outcome - Norway+. My recollection of events is that - "Norway+" was not on offer in the first place, it would not be possible to get a better deal than Norway has but also without Freedom of Movement.
- The ERG rejected "Norway+" because it would have meant European Court jurisdiction.
But I suppose it is easier to blame 'The Remainers' for not delivering a better Brexit than the one we got. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 21, 2023 16:40:47 GMT
You have to remember that Labour had been in power for 13 years and had just 'lost' the election. I don't think that arrangement would have been politically viable at the time nor would have been at all stable. The only realistic alternative was a Tory minority government, which wouldn't have lasted long. Cameron would have called another election not long after and probably won it, but this would still have been preferable to the coalition. The point re - Cameron calling another election is often made but I am not persuaded that the constitutional basis for it is sound. The Monarch would be likely to refuse a request for another Dissolution if there was a realistic possibility of an alternative Government being formed from the existing House of Commons. Given the parliamentary arithmetic an alternative Government was available - ie if Cameron did not wish to carry on , Ed Milliband could have headed a Rainbow Coalition or a Minority Government supported by the various smaller parties. Wilson was given an election in October 1974 in similar circumstances. Elizabeth II was a cautious monarch who essentially always followed her PM's 'advice' as an instruction. I am certain Cameron would have got his dissolution. Also your proposed rainbow coalition - requiring every opposition party to cooperate - is not actually a "realistic possibility". Surely the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP would have asked for proportional representation as their price, which Labour would never have accepted (unfortunately) as it would have split the PLP (Brown offered AV, which is of course not a form of PR). |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Mar 21, 2023 16:43:31 GMT
I'm not sure Rowley does believe it to be honest but suspect that he feels he has to say it. He is repeating the same mistake that Cressida Dick made, with the short-term objective of keeping the troops onside over-riding the survival chances of the Met. Maybe he has his head in the sand and still feels that rather like those banks in 2008, the Met is too big to fail. Just as likely, he's calculating that if he if can mount a rear-guard action and get to retirement, before what increasingly feels like the inevitable demise of the Met, then he will have had a result. The report has not changed my previously stated opinion. There is no possibility of reform from within for the Met, it is not only institutionally racist, it is institutionally corrupt in deliberate and clear intentional efforts to undermine reforms and government oversight. It needs to be broken up and replaced with new policing bodies that do not result in a 'too big to fail' police force controlling both local policing over a massive area, and national security force duties. Those currently serving as Met officers should have to go through serious and comprehensive vetting before being employed by any other police force. I don't understand why the Met hosts the Diplomatic and terrorist functions. They are national functions and should be separated. The Met should concentrate on policing London. I too am not optimistic that change will come. After my job as Director of Education for a local authority I spent 6 years as a private consultant contracted by the Department for Education to go into local authorities to review and assist education services deemed to be failing. The threat was that without significant cultural and operational change the service would be outsourced to Capita or suchlike. Without this sword of Damocles hanging over them these departments would have resisted change. As it was I was able to go in and to present my analysis and improvement plan ( much like Louise Casey) to a receptive audience of councillors who started off in a sulky bowing to the inevitable mood but over time genuinely saw how much better things could be. I hope that the threat of breaking up the Met serves the same purpose although I think the Met's problems are deeper an more widespread than anything I dealt with and I share your view that the task is too great, particularly for Mark Rowley, who as a past ACC with the Met has to be part of the problem not the solution. And his quibbling this morning over the term 'institutional' seemed to be playing a violin while the Met burns and didn't fill me with any confidence. In the 70s when corruption was rife in the Met it took a Chief Constable from another force to go in and shine a light and even then, after the fuss died down a lot of bad practice resumed. AS an addendum , When Casey talks of institutional racism, homophobia and misogyny, she doesn't mean every officer is like that but rather that the institution protects and sustains such behaviours and that when decent officers complain they are treated as the problem and their career prospects suffer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 16:44:31 GMT
No - the numbers were there in 2010 - 258 Lab + 57 LD + 3 SDLP + 3 Plaid + 6 SNP + 1 Green +1 Alliance gives a total of 329. The Independent Sylvia Hermon was also a likely supporter. Ah 2010... when the Tories won Brighton Kemptown, Labour won Mansfield and the Lib Dems won Bristol West.
How times change.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Mar 21, 2023 16:50:27 GMT
Here's a report on UKPR1 that attempts to explain the recent anomaly of 13% Green support in a recent poll: pollingreport.uk/articles/the-greens-arent-on-13-heres-one-reason-the-polling-might-be-wrong Basically it suggests that it is because the pollster (PeoplePolling) relies on Find Out Now, and that the panel is heavily skewed towards women and older voters and that there may be other difficulties. Apparently they overestimate small party support and underestimate Cons. This wouldn't matter too much on its own, but I was surprised that Electoral Calculus also say that they use Find Out Now, which casts a bit of doubt on what I always thought was a pretty reliable site - it's certainly widely quoted. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Mar 21, 2023 16:53:07 GMT
jayblanc You would primarily end up with a highway patrol, local municipal police and a national police service akin to the FBI plus specialist units such as the Secret Service,I am not remotely certain that adopting the American pattern of police organisations would improve the situation. Incidentally Scotland went in entirely the opposite direction and incorporated all its police forces into Police Scotland and similar applies in PSNI there's no intrinsic reason why bigger is worse. As to vetting all serving Met Police officers 90%+ of whom have done nothing wrong would be an excellent way of losing a quarter of all officers who have reached the age when their extended service is voluntary ( 55) or Ill health (50) and can retire on full pension. Good luck with replacing them with new officers who have to go through a three year degree apprenticeship at not much more than minimum wage. You see Steve, I think your viewpoint would be reflective of the vast amount of ordinary decent officers in the Met. But that's precisely the problem. How can we expect anything to change if we don't change anything. Officers are understandably defensive but the whole point of institutional problems are that 'everyone' is involved. Any officer who didn't raise problems for fear of being ostracised or damaged or whatever is a victim of this institutional disease and their working practices as well as the those of the guilty has to change. The only way to overhaul the Met is to overhaul it. I don't see why the Met should have any national responsibilities. The rest of country manages quite well being a local municipal force. It is precisely this metropolitan exceptionalism that has got us where we are today. Move out all the national responsibilities and recruit specifically for those elsewhere and let the Met get on with policing London. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 21, 2023 16:56:52 GMT
The point re - Cameron calling another election is often made but I am not persuaded that the constitutional basis for it is sound. The Monarch would be likely to refuse a request for another Dissolution if there was a realistic possibility of an alternative Government being formed from the existing House of Commons. Given the parliamentary arithmetic an alternative Government was available - ie if Cameron did not wish to carry on , Ed Milliband could have headed a Rainbow Coalition or a Minority Government supported by the various smaller parties. Wilson was given an election in October 1974 in similar circumstances. Elizabeth II was a cautious monarch who essentially always followed her PM's 'advice' as an instruction. I am 100% certain Cameron would have got his dissolution. Also your proposed rainbow coalition - requiring every opposition party to cooperate - is not actually a "realistic possibility". Surely the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP would have asked for proportional representation as their price, which Labour would never have accepted (unfortunately) as it would have split the PLP (Brown offered AV, which is of course not a form of PR). The position in 1974 was different in that Heath had tried - and failed - to form a Coalition with Thorpe's Liberals. There was no prospect of the SNP and Plaid Cymru supporting the Tories.. However, if over the Summer of 1974 the Tories and Liberals had somehow come to an arrangement -plus the the support of assorted Unionist MPs -, it might well have been the case that Wilson would have been denied the Autumn Dissolution. Going further back to 1924 , when Ramsay Macdonald's first Labour Government fell that Autumn, Macdonald asked for a Dissolution. George V only granted his request after being advised by both Baldwin and Asquith that neither was in a position to form a Government. Any Government formed by Milliband in the 2010 Parliament would have been precarious - but the numbers were there to enable it - at least in the short term. He could reasonably have expected to have been given the opportunity to test support for his Government in the House of Commons.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 21, 2023 16:58:02 GMT
Here's a report on UKPR1 that attempts to explain the recent anomaly of 13% Green support in a recent poll: pollingreport.uk/articles/the-greens-arent-on-13-heres-one-reason-the-polling-might-be-wrong Basically it suggests that it is because the pollster (PeoplePolling) relies on Find Out Now, and that the panel is heavily skewed towards women and older voters and that there may be other difficulties. Apparently they overestimate small party support and underestimate Cons. This wouldn't matter too much on its own, but I was surprised that Electoral Calculus also say that they use Find Out Now, which casts a bit of doubt on what I always thought was a pretty reliable site - it's certainly widely quoted. I use Electoral Calculus for my local by-election analysis because they break down their seat projections to council ward level (which is unique as far as I know), but those projections themselves look pretty dubious, being much too favorable to Labour. I agree re People Polling - their Labour figures are fairly mainstream, but Con is lower and 'others' higher - although which 'others' seems to vary from poll to poll. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Mar 21, 2023 17:09:37 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 17:11:37 GMT
barbaraPrimarily the Met has national responsibilities because local constabularies don't have the resources or man power. It's unrealistic for example for a constabluary to have a dedicated anti terrorism or diplomatic protection unit when its total establishment is only around 1500 officers It's entirely possible to separate these roles from the Met but a little pointless to replace existing infrastructure and resources. Would frankly be little more than a renaming exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Mar 21, 2023 17:17:38 GMT
Wilson was given an election in October 1974 in similar circumstances. Elizabeth II was a cautious monarch who essentially always followed her PM's 'advice' as an instruction. I am 100% certain Cameron would have got his dissolution. Also your proposed rainbow coalition - requiring every opposition party to cooperate - is not actually a "realistic possibility". Surely the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP would have asked for proportional representation as their price, which Labour would never have accepted (unfortunately) as it would have split the PLP (Brown offered AV, which is of course not a form of PR). The position in 1974 was different in that Heath had tried - and failed - to form a Coalition with Thorpe's Liberals. There was no prospect of the SNP and Plaid Cymru supporting the Tories.. However, if over the Summer of 1974 the Tories and Liberals had somehow come to an arrangement -plus the the support of assorted Unionist MPs -, it might well have been the case that Wilson would have been denied the Autumn Dissolution. Going further back to 1924 , when Ramsay Macdonald's first Labour Government fell that Autumn, Macdonald asked for a Dissolution. George V only granted his request after being advised by both Baldwin and Asquith that neither was in a position to form a Government. Any Government formed by Milliband in the 2010 Parliament would have been precarious - but the numbers were there to enable it - at least in the short term. He could reasonably have expected to have been given the opportunity to test support for his Government in the House of Commons.
Only two things are important. 1. There can only ever be a Labour or a Tory prime minister; 2. A Labour prime minister is always, ALWAYS, preferable. Simples All that is required to govern is the numbers and nerves of steel. In 2010, Brown had the numbers (i.e. more not-tories than tories), and he certainly had nerves of steel, holding out until the last possible moment. LD wouldn’t even speak to him though. How different things might have been. |
|
