Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2024 18:44:23 GMT
Lulu the lemon. No raw nerve touched at all, just mild irritation! UKPR would be a much poorer place without periodic irritation outbreaks!! I pledged my troth in my first reply to you, so no more on the subject from me. Our respective large coteries of admirers on here will no doubt be be glad to hear that and be keen too that we return quickly to our best form. I plough my own furrow on here, as you know, so, no more of this introspection and preciousness. I will therefore shortly resume my merciless lampoonery of others, pitiless sarcasm and Aston Villa updates, unencumbered by self-doubt. And maybe, very occasionally, provide the odd bit of political insight and pearls of polling wisdom! 🤣😛 Miss Lemon: Just to offer some balance, ole Batty has actually been in touch with me to say that you had, indeed, touched one of his many raw nerves. Seemed very upset to be honest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2024 18:46:25 GMT
robbiealive“ Thanks. I did say some seats achieved this in '97. Some being an adjective indicating an unknown quantity. ” Dunno what we would do without you learning’ us stuff like that in wor little boutique.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,089
|
Post by oldnat on Jan 12, 2024 18:47:48 GMT
R&W Scots poll (9-11 Jan)
Westminster (with changes from 26-27 November in parentheses) Scottish National Party 35% (+1) Labour 35% (-1) Conservative 17% (–) Liberal Democrat 9% (+3) Scottish Green Party 2% (–) Reform UK 2% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Holyrood Constituency (with changes from 29-30 October in parentheses) Scottish National Party 37% (+3) Scottish Labour 32% (+2) Scottish Conservatives 18% (-4) Scottish Liberal Democrats 8% (–) Scottish Green Party 3% (+1) Reform UK Scotland 1% (-1) Alba Party 0% (-2) Other 1% (+1)
Holyrood List (with changes from 29-30 October in parentheses) Scottish National Party 25% (-3) Scottish Labour 30% (+3) Scottish Conservatives 17% (-4) Scottish Liberal Democrats 10% (+2) Scottish Green Party 11% (+2) Reform UK Scotland 4% Alba Party 2% (-1)
Indy Yes 46% (-) No 47% (-1) DK 7% (+1)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2024 18:48:51 GMT
To use the mercian line, apologies for multiple posts*. They are due to me not feeling very well and thus having no energy to practise. *At least mine are jolly good (in comparison.)
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 12, 2024 18:53:08 GMT
And Portsmouth South as recently as 2017! Another is Mid-Bedfordshire, Labour came third in 2010 and won it in 2023 Indeed - and in 2019 local factors saw Labour fall to third place in Cities of London & Westminster and Finchley & Golders Green, but I have no doubt the party will be the main non-Tory option this year. Wimbledon is another possible Labour win from third place. Sutton Carshalton & Wallington might also be interestinh.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 12, 2024 18:58:33 GMT
robbiealive “ Thanks. I did say some seats achieved this in '97. Some being an adjective indicating an unknown quantity. ” Dunno what we would do without you learning’ us stuff like that in wor little boutique. Thinking about it, some probably more often means an unspecified quantity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2024 19:29:51 GMT
Like “See you….sometime” perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 12, 2024 19:46:22 GMT
The weird thing is that the God of the Jews, Christians and Moslems is all supposed to be the same bloke. I think that, with Batty’s help, I can give the whole lot of them your address Pete. And none of them will approve of your calling him “a bloke”. (I believe the punishments vary but they all hurt like fuck - though the pain does eventually cease.) Oh I see - political correctness gone mad as usual - she's a bird not a bloke. Or maybe trans?
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Jan 12, 2024 19:48:49 GMT
RobbieAlive: "The two main parties believe in a electoral system in which they take turns to rule under FPTP."
Nice to see a non-partisan post on a serious topic, leavened with humour. The way UKPR2 should be.
The power-alternating duopoly in the UK is, sadly, exactly as you describe it. It's notable that one of the few things committed Labour and Tory supporters can agree on is hatred of third parties which threaten to intrude on that cosy sharing of power. Whether it's LDs or SNP as interlopers, there seems a special venom reserved for them. JiB, whatever his actual political alignment and motivation, is just the most extreme example posting here.
One can find excuses for this. Parties unburdened by the compromises and awkward choices of government can tend towards the holier-than-thou. So when the LDs became a party of government and messed up badly, a degree of schadenfreude on the part of Lab and Con was understandable. Ditto with the SNP.
Will the duopoly ever concede PR? Only following a truly ridiculous GE result, I suspect. But even if the Tories were reduced to double figures in a Canada-style wipeout, I expect the rump would still believe in a FPTP-facilitated, Buggins' turn resurrection.
Meanwhile, we'll struggle on, burdened by unrepresentative and incompetent government. Another 10 years of gentle slither down the slippery slope is what I see in prospect. Maybe the next Labour government will prove a lot more effective than I expect. Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 12, 2024 19:59:16 GMT
Like “See you….sometime” perhaps? Yeah tho I think its an adverb in yr case not an adjective as it qualifies a verb not a noun. As in "Crofty is feeling some soreness after playing his banjo." Looking it up in wiki it can also be a pronoun. The example given: if you need money I'll lend you some. I guess it's one of those little words which give people some trouble when they are learning English? It is also Wiki says an existential determinative & polarity sensitive. I don't understand the former but the latter means you can say I have some objections but not I don't have some (any) objections.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2024 20:11:56 GMT
I think that, with Batty’s help, I can give the whole lot of them your address Pete. And none of them will approve of your calling him “a bloke”. (I believe the punishments vary but they all hurt like fuck - though the pain does eventually cease.) Oh I see - political correctness gone mad as usual - she's a bird not a bloke. Or maybe trans? Actually it’s religious correctness. It’s disrespectful to refer to a genuine, proven deity as a “bloke” and doing so is - quite reasonably - punishable by a slow, painful death. That gives you plenty of time to repent before you die and embrace one of the gods.* All above board according to the rule books. (*Make sure to choose the correct one or things can get even worse. )
|
|
|
Post by thylacine on Jan 12, 2024 20:51:08 GMT
I think that, with Batty’s help, I can give the whole lot of them your address Pete. And none of them will approve of your calling him “a bloke”. (I believe the punishments vary but they all hurt like fuck - though the pain does eventually cease.) Oh I see - political correctness gone mad as usual - she's a bird not a bloke. Or maybe trans? It seems quite odd to think of god with genitalia ( what in heaven would he use them for?). I suppose you could quote the making man in his own image thing as proof but that would be one enormous penis if correct theology.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 12, 2024 21:05:43 GMT
Last nights BBC Question Time programme was, certainly by its recent doleful standards, one of the more interesting ones that I had watched of late. Two reasons for this, I felt; the panel was very well balanced politically and, secondly, the audience was made up entirely of undecided voters rather than comprising party proportionate numbers of past party voters. Some caveats, obviously. Leadsom, batting for the Tories, was a bit unconvincing, but Nandy, Rose and particularly Anand Menon were interesting and reasonably non-partisan in terms of them resisting the temptation to flog party lines. Nandy strayed sometimes but Menon was excellent. He oozed centrist Dad wisdom! The other caveat was audience selection. To what extent the whole audience was truly undecided was debatable but, in fairness, the quality and nature of the questions asked, and comments made, suggested that most were genuinely mulling over how or whether they would vote in the next election.
I was particularly struck by the response to one audience member question, though. Most of the programme was blissfully devoid of audience whooping and applause but this question drew the loudest and longest ovation of the night. Just about the only one too! It was about electoral reform and the aching need for a more representative voting system. It obviously struck an audience nerve and the questioner was clearly articulating what most in the room felt.
The significance of this response was not lost on me. Here was a group of non-aligned and undecided voters, but that wasn't because they were uninterested in politics. They were and they thought deeply about it, quite obviously. Undecided or disillusioned? I suspect both and there lies the problem with British politics. It blithely sails on down the same old tracks, pulling an increasingly empty train, not noticing how many passengers have alighted.
When is a political party going to wake up the real problem with our malfunctioning country? It's our politics, stupid, yet hardly anyone is confronting that enormous elephant in the room. But the public get it. Last night's Question Time shone a small light on how most feel.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 12, 2024 22:10:23 GMT
Oh I see - political correctness gone mad as usual - she's a bird not a bloke. Or maybe trans? Actually it’s religious correctness. It’s disrespectful to refer to a genuine, proven deity as a “bloke” and doing so is - quite reasonably - punishable by a slow, painful death. That gives you plenty of time to repent before you die and embrace one of the gods.* All above board according to the rule books. (*Make sure to choose the correct one or things can get even worse. ) Ok, chap then. I read a book once called "God is an Englishman" so I expect he's a decent chap, good company at the golf club and all that, what?
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 12, 2024 22:11:47 GMT
Oh I see - political correctness gone mad as usual - she's a bird not a bloke. Or maybe trans? It seems quite odd to think of god with genitalia ( what in heaven would he use them for?). I suppose you could quote the making man in his own image thing as proof but that would be one enormous penis if correct theology. I've always assumed that that was what the term Big Bang referred to.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,399
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 12, 2024 22:16:44 GMT
Whoa a minute, that's far too sweeping a statement. There are masses of seats where Labour were in third place in 1983 but won in 1997 - my own fair town of Braintree being just one example. In many cases Labour climbed back into second place in 1987 or 1992 before winning in 1997, but in a few cases they won directly from third place - Falmouth and Camborne for example. Thanks. I did say some seats achieved this in '97. Some being an adjective usually indicating an unspecified quantity. "Some" implies not that many. In fact it is a lot. I have started having a look through the 1983 results and having reached the end of those beginning with A to C (172 constituencies) I have already found 19* where Labour finished third in 1983 and won in 1997 (or in the nearest successor seat) - and that doesn't even include somewhere like Canterbury where Labour polled 15.7% of the vote in 1983 and have won in the last two General Elections. The evidence is overwhelming that the suggestion that once Labour falls to third it can never again win has no basis in psephology. *Bedfordshire N (Bedford in 97), Birmingham Edgbaston, Blackpool N, Braintree, Brigg & Cleethorpes, Brighton Pavilion, Bristol West, Broxtowe, Calder Valley, Cambridge, Cardiff Central, Cardiff N, Clwyd NE, Clwyd SW, Colne Valley, Conwy, Crosby, Croydon NE, Croydon NW.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,399
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 12, 2024 22:19:55 GMT
Oh I see - political correctness gone mad as usual - she's a bird not a bloke. Or maybe trans? It seems quite odd to think of god with genitalia ( what in heaven would he use them for?). I suppose you could quote the making man in his own image thing as proof but that would be one enormous penis if correct theology. Depends which gods you are referring to. The Greek deities were at it like rabbits (and quite possibly as rabbits on occasion).
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 12, 2024 22:22:53 GMT
I was particularly struck by the response to one audience member question, though. Most of the programme was blissfully devoid of audience whooping and applause but this question drew the loudest and longest ovation of the night. Just about the only one too! It was about electoral reform and the aching need for a more representative voting system. It obviously struck an audience nerve and the questioner was clearly articulating what most in the room felt. The significance of this response was not lost on me. Here was a group of non-aligned and undecided voters, but that wasn't because they were uninterested in politics. They were and they thought deeply about it, quite obviously. Undecided or disillusioned? I suspect both and there lies the problem with British politics. It blithely sails on down the same old tracks, pulling an increasingly empty train, not noticing how many passengers have alighted. When is a political party going to wake up the real problem with our malfunctioning country? It's our politics, stupid, yet hardly anyone is confronting that enormous elephant in the room. But the public get it. Last night's Question Time shone a small light on how most feel. crossbat11 Interesting. Good to know that QT is becoming a bit less partisan. I wonder how a party with PR as it's main policy would get on? I'd vote for them if they didn't pollute their main message with too much left-wing stuff, as Greens have done (else I might vote for them too).
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 12, 2024 23:12:58 GMT
Last night's local elections.
Brighton and Hove - South Portslade Lab win -6% Con +2.9% LibDem +3% Green -2% Others (all new) +9.1%
Dorset - Lttlemoor and Preston Con win (but will be disqualified) +24.3% LibDem +19% Lab -9.5% Salford Quays LibDem win +17.4% Lab -12.6% Green +3.4% No Con Tendring Bluehouse 10 candidates so I won't give detail. Ind win. Con 2nd.
As usual very underwhelming enthusiasm for Labour, belying the Opinion Polls. I know it's low turnout etc but the percentage changes are compared to the last comparable local election. I thought the Brighton result was particularly illuminating because it seems to show the Labour vote largely going to Others (of whom the main one was TUSC). Could this be the downside of Starmer's 'say nothing' approach?
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 12, 2024 23:30:05 GMT
Thanks. I did say some seats achieved this in '97. Some being an adjective usually indicating an unspecified quantity. "Some" implies not that many. In fact it is a lot. I have started having a look through the 1983 results and having reached the end of those beginning with A to C (172 constituencies) I have already found 19* where Labour finished third in 1983 and won in 1997 (or in the nearest successor seat) - and that doesn't even include somewhere like Canterbury where Labour polled 15.7% of the vote in 1983 and have won in the last two General Elections. The evidence is overwhelming that the suggestion that once Labour falls to third it can never again win has no basis in psephology. *Bedfordshire N (Bedford in 97), Birmingham Edgbaston, Blackpool N, Braintree, Brigg & Cleethorpes, Brighton Pavilion, Bristol West, Broxtowe, Calder Valley, Cambridge, Cardiff Central, Cardiff N, Clwyd NE, Clwyd SW, Colne Valley, Conwy, Crosby, Croydon NE, Croydon NW. Excellent work & I'm glad my off-the-cuff & indeed careless remark has found you an occupation for these long, cold winter evenings. Of course, whatever the final results of yr research, which I look forward to eagerly, in the end, 1997 was a wholly exceptional election. It was a year of Labour candidates leapfrogging. "We shall not see its like again". Or at least I don't think I will. Besides there is a pretty long gap between '83 & '97. Also 1983 was another exceptional year in which the SDP won almost as many votes as Labour. Does voting for an entirely new party count as tactical voting? In how many seates were Labour pushed into 3rd place by the SDP? Um. You will forgive my suspicion of a methodology which compares 2 exceptional years. "To use one looks like a misfortune, to use two looks likes carelessness." Tactical voting is a clumsy & unpredictable instrument used chiefly by Lib-Dem & Labour voters, though it usually asks more of the former than the latter?, to increase the representation of the sadly divided progressive forces in British elections. Its cause is FPTP. That system seems, in turn, to be the main cause of why in my lifetime -- I was born in '50 -- we have to 23 years of Labour government, 46 years of Tory, & 5 years of a Tory-dominated Coalition. (Tactical voting ironically is said delivered the coup de grace to the Lib-Dems in 2015, when many former Lib-Dem voters in Southern & esp South-west constitutecis switched to the Tories to avoid a Miiliband-led government. There's another research project for you.) I tried to broaden the debate as to ask yet again why Labour has been as wedded to FPTP as the Tories, despite the fact that it has favoured the Tories so much more than themselves. A debate which obviously didn't interest you. I have voted Labour in every election since 1979, when scenting the horror that was to come I finally turned out. FPTP has served the country badly. Tactical voting has done little more than ameliorate an undemocratic system, one which is pretty well unique to the UK. Finally, in '83 which you have chosen for unexplained reaons & '87 the combined Lab & SDP vte was 53%. It was, as usual, FPTP which saw the Tories home. PS. I now see my worthy constituent, crossbat11 is enthused that the QT has raised the same subject. PPS. I hv removed the head from yr doll & am about the attack it with needles of the size I once saw someone injected with botox.
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jan 12, 2024 23:42:49 GMT
“I'm glad my off-the-cuff & indeed careless remark has found you an occupation for these long, cold winter evenings.”
[Ratbag]
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Jan 13, 2024 0:01:22 GMT
I was particularly struck by the response to one audience member question, though. Most of the programme was blissfully devoid of audience whooping and applause but this question drew the loudest and longest ovation of the night. Just about the only one too! It was about electoral reform and the aching need for a more representative voting system. It obviously struck an audience nerve and the questioner was clearly articulating what most in the room felt. The significance of this response was not lost on me. Here was a group of non-aligned and undecided voters, but that wasn't because they were uninterested in politics. They were and they thought deeply about it, quite obviously. Undecided or disillusioned? I suspect both and there lies the problem with British politics. It blithely sails on down the same old tracks, pulling an increasingly empty train, not noticing how many passengers have alighted. When is a political party going to wake up the real problem with our malfunctioning country? It's our politics, stupid, yet hardly anyone is confronting that enormous elephant in the room. But the public get it. Last night's Question Time shone a small light on how most feel. Perhaps the way to make politicians realise how dire FPTP is would be to invite them (in small groups) to a social function, with a group of other attendees primed to respond en bloc. The politician would be asked some simple questions, such as "Tea or coffee?" If they say "Tea", then the non-politicians all say "Coffee". And only coffee is served. Every single choice question will be asked of the politician first, and their views will then be deliberately out-voted. If they complain then point out that that's exactly what First Past The Post means - the majority can crush all other opinions. Maybe some of them might then get the message. But I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Jan 13, 2024 0:45:58 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
|
Post by steve on Jan 13, 2024 6:21:35 GMT
Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda treaty is unlikely to address concerns raised by the supreme court about the country not being a safe place to send asylum seekers, a House of Lords inquiry has been told.
Ahead of next week’s showdown on the Rwanda legislation, the Law Society, academics and human rights groups said the treaty risked undermining the rule of law and highlighted the untested nature of the proposed asylum system to be adopted by the east African country. The Law Society said the recent supreme court judgment against the Rwanda asylum policy highlighted that many of the problems with Rwanda’s asylum system were structural and that it was doubtful this could change in the short term.
“The Law Society therefore has serious concerns that the treaty and its additional measures do not sufficiently address the concerns of the supreme court,” it said in new evidence published by the Lords international agreements committee.
That's ok Sunakered can just announce that it does satisfy their concerns.
Isn't how the taken back control regime works?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
|
Post by steve on Jan 13, 2024 6:42:57 GMT
isa I'm sorry but that was a journalistic hatchet job the phrasing of the questions was in an appalling manner and the preconceptions made blindingly obvious this would have never occurred with Tory or Labour party leaders. The reporter was clearly more interested in opening his gob and showing how clever he was than anything Davey might have had to say in reply. Ed Davey's position was that he was lied to by the post office on an industrial scale, the evidence is that he wasn't unique the post office lied to everyone concerned.There's a significant possibility their lies amounted to criminality as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. It isn't standard practice to ask anyone to apologise for being lied to they are normally regarded as the victims in such circumstances. It's probable Davey was too accepting of the post office line, this was true of all government ministers from about 2005 on wards but beyond that he isn't any more culpable than other ministers and given that he did at least speak to the post masters in person, the only minister up to that time who had he's less culpable than some , far less so than the post office and Fujitsu directors who were actually responsible for the miscarriage of justice. Postal staff had been prosecuted at the rate of about one a week since 1999 but The ministers in charge for The previous decade and The decade after Davey are being given a free pass by journalists as are the Tory ministers at the time which of course include the current foreign Secretary why is that?Then prime minister Tony Blair was warned as early as 1998 that The horizon system was flawed and not fit for purpose, the media want a scapegoat and they've chosen Davey. The what passed for a journalist was asking him to apologise for being lied to, he said he regretted what happened to the postal staff and that he had been provided a pack of lies by the post office, if they had told the truth the whole thing could have been concluded far earlier.What else could he actually add? * Davey didn't look particularly well to be honest being hounded by Tory apologist journalists is probably having its impact on a fundamentally decent man. Given that he's the only relevant minister or other senior figure involved whose actually been prepared to speak in an interview this shoddy piece of badly edited partisanship isn't likely to get many others queuing up to do the same.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,030
|
Post by neilj on Jan 13, 2024 7:47:34 GMT
Braverman and her cohort are putting ammendments forward to the Rwanda Bill which would make it impossible to get majority support in Parliament (in fairness it's probably already impossible to get it through the Lords) If she doesn't get her ammendments through she says she will vote against the Rwsnda Bill in the coming week The question is how many of her group will actually vote against it, it was a damp squib last time But either way it's likely to be an uncomfortable time for Sunak, showing the tories are still a divided party Get the popcorn ready
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 13, 2024 7:51:34 GMT
He could, maybe should have said: "It's sad, so sad A sad sad situation And it's getting More and more absurd" By the way, I read Bernie Taupin's autobiography "Scattershot:Life, Music, Elton and Me" not long ago. Just as Alan Partridge didn't do anecdotes in his classic autobiography, "Bouncing Back", Bernie does neither modesty nor prose in his. How the hell I ever got to its final 400th page, I'll never know! Endurance, I suppose, plus a vague and forlorn hope fhat it was going to get interesting at some point. Alas, it never really did.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 13, 2024 8:15:41 GMT
steve
I've just watched the Davey interview that isa shared and while I agree with you that it was one of those rather silly gotcha type exchanges, and Davey was obviously thinking beyond it and realising that apologising was a tacit acceptance of guilt, I don't think Paul Brand, the interviewer, is a Tory apologist type journalist as you suggest.
He did some excellent journalistic work for ITN uncovering Partygate and the extent of Johnson's lying and venality. He was at the forefront of the exposure of that scandal that eventually led to Johnson's downfall.
Maybe the moral here, and the lesson for media organisations too, is that good journalists don't always make good interviewers. Political interviewing is a particular skill and art. Few are very good at it. Andrew Marr, an excellent journalist was a mediocre interviewer, as was Matthew Parris. Eddie Mair is a master of the art, as was Robin Day. Paxman was entertaining but seriously overrated, I always thought. He rarely uncovered gems, usually mined by stealth not smart-arsery.
My loyal readership will know that I'm no great admirer of Andrew Neil, but maybe he's an example of someone who is a pretty mediocre journalist but has saving graces as a political interviewer.
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 13, 2024 8:21:24 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,030
|
Post by neilj on Jan 13, 2024 8:47:43 GMT
I think this is the dilemma for the tories If they move even further to the right to placate Reform types, they will haemorrhage even more votes to Labour and other left parties A straight switch of a vote for Labour is far more damaging electorally than one to Reform
|
|