Great timing from the EU, breaking all their own rules to fast track free Turkish access to Shengen countries. I'm sure there are restrictions but the headlines alone will be lapped out by The Out campaign and Far Right groups. It's almost as if they want a Brexit
The government says its 'too late' to stop the process of bringing in the new contract for junior doctors. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of either side this is pure, unvarnished bollocks. A job contract is not a force of nature, or an out of control train. If humans can't influence something like this (by, for example, saying "we'll keep the current terms and conditions until we reach agreement on new ones") we might as well give up. Much more honest for the government to say "we want to force the crisis and destroy resistance".
Thatcher took on the NUM. For Hameron/**** the BMA is the enemy. It's come to something when our government considers doctors to be dangerous subversives.
no mention of the mass brawl in the Turkish parliament the other day. Wouldn't have looked out of place in the Shed in the early 70's. Strange bed fellows the Remanians yearn for
? Cameron said in Parliament yesterday that it would be decades if ever for Turkey to join the EU. A single EU country can veto anyway and the French, who have no desire to admit the Turks, have promised a referendum on it should it ever look likely, and the Cypriots and (I think) Greeks would veto, probably others too, including the UK if we were still members. The 'deal' giving Turks tourist visa fast track access to the Schengen area is tied to several criteria around transparency in the Turkish political system which it is very doubtful they can meet. Only 10% of Turks have passports and a tiny fraction of them have the 3rd generation biometric passports required. This is a non story in terms of the current referendum, but obviously the Brexit leadership will play on paranoia regardless. Just as the Remain crew play on fear of economic Armageddon.
Apparently today is "Super Thursday" - I've already voted for our new beloved Mayor. Really just a choice between Tooting Popular Front's Citizen Khan and Internationl Financier Sir Jammy Fishpaste's son Zackery.
Where I am the only thing we have to vote for today is the Police Commissioner, or whatever they are called. As I have had precisely zero information on who the candidates are I will be abstaining from this privilege. Or I might have a look on line and if anyone stands out I'll exercise my democratic duty. Why didn't they delay all the elections happening today and have them on the same day as the referendum, or bring the referendum forward to coincide with today? Then the turnout would have told us exactly how interested the British are in democracy. I still haven't had my government funded EU information book, how on earth am I expected to make my mind up?
In truth, a lot of things will be learned by having these elections on different days. I'd be really surprised if the PCC elections get more than about 15% across the country. Areas where there are also local elections will get a little more, but that will depend on local stuff - in a borough near me, there's been a load of trouble over the past year with traffic issues, which the population blame on pathetically inept decisions by the incumbent councillors. I'd expect that area to have a higher than average turnout. London Mayoral elections will always generate voters, although it's gonna be Labour or Tory, so the outcome in this AV election will be decided by the candidate the other party voters dislike the least. Not necessarily the way politicians should be given such power. This does give them a pretty wide range of data (PCC only, PCC plus local, PCC plus Mayors, etc). The EU referendum is bound to generate votes, and a high turnout is definitely on the cards. If they held it on the same day as the others, those results may well get skewed (ironically) by a large number of people sticking a cross against a name without caring at all who they are voting for.
That's a pretty cynical view of the electorate, though it may be accurate. Even if votes were cast mindlessly, or more likely according to traditional loyalties, at least the beneficiaries would have a slightly enhanced mandate. But it's not something I'm going to get exercised about. I've now looked up my local PCC candidates. I am sure they are all worthy candidates, except the UKIP bloke, who has a personal statement amounting to "life is tough and I've survived [he is an elderly man with a soul patch beard]. Vote for me". The other party candidates are all local or county councillors saying the same thing about increasing police numbers (I won't ask how) and being community based. One independent candidate is an ex senior copper, comprehensive programme but I don't want coppers holding other coppers to account. The other independent is a 22 year old lad who looks 14. He has some relevant experience in the year since he left Uni, but again he has to hold people to account and I can't see how he can do this effectively. Good for him for having a go though. Given that I don't mind who wins (I don't expect to hear much about the winner unless they do something daft) and even more, don't care whether these positions exist or not (preferably not, they cost money) whether I vote will be down to whether they let dogs into the polling station, and whether my stroll takes me in the right direction.
Understand it's cynical, but the politics of election management is increasingly a cynical PR exercise - something New Labour cemented in their time in office. All parties will be looking at the differences between turnout, political inclination, weather, and which votes are taking place. They will be looking to learn something about what energises people to go and vote. And they will use that - initially in the upcoming EU referendum vote but going forwards in local, national, and EU elections in the years to come. Are people interested in who the PCC is? Almost certainly not, unless you're involved with the law in some way. Are people interested in local elections? Depends on what's happened over the last year or two - either directly to you or in your area. As I said above, there's a large amount of distrust and dislike for certain councillors in a nearby borough, and that's going to hit them in the polls today, from all accounts. Are people interested in Mayoral elections? Given the amount of power an elected mayor of a large municipal area will wield, they ought to be but there's always a large group that can't - or won't - be bothered to vote. Given good weather, I expect a large turnout for the EU referendum, because people are aware of the importance in a way that they don't seem to be about these other votes. Something like today will identify which areas and which elections parties need to prioritise and invest into, as well as which ones - like the PCC elections - there's little point worrying about.
I rather like the AV system. It meant I could vote Green, but put Khan as my second choice, giving me the comfort of knowing I wasn't letting Goldsmith in.
Then AV is entirely tactical, and the person that more people actually want to win becomes irrelevant. Not a system I would want to see introduced across the country.
Well look at that, it is possible to pause the implementation of the new contract after all. Who would have guessed.
I disagree. Without AV I would just have voted for Khan. Not because I particularly like him, but to keep out the Tory - a purely tactical vote. With AV I could vote for Sian Berry, my real preference to win. The tactical part becomes secondary.
Even knowing that the Green Party have no real chance of winning? I reckon your voting this time is just as tactical. I don't think any of the potential systems are any better than FPTP. At least in that, candidates know that they need to convince more people to vote for them than for another candidate. There's no sense that they need to appease people that they know won't possibly vote for them to the detriment of getting as many votes from as many of the electorate as possible.
The point is that it gives me the opportunity to cast a vote for someone I know has no real chance of winning without feeling that I have wasted my vote.
I... think I understand you. Voting for someone that won't win still feels to me like a wasted vote, however, as the person you 'really' hope gets the job is someone you don't actually want to vote for (else they would get your first vote) simply because he's less detestable than the other person who has a chance of winning? I'm not trying to be funny, I really struggle to understand how people justify their voting choices once you step out of FPTP...
Should anyone with a preference for a minority candidate just not bother to vote then? It's quite simple, really. I would like Sian Berry to win, so I voted for her. I don't want Goldsmith to win, so I put Khan as my second preference.
How does AV work when you are voting for a single position? Does your second choice get counted as a half vote or something? I should look it up I suppose. Is the London Assembly elected the same way? I get PR but need to put a bit of time in on AV.
