General British politics discussion thread

breezy1985

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Whatever about voting for the president or specific diaspora designated TDs or senators, I can't understand the requirement to continue to have voting rights for the national parliament constituencies while living abroad. I believe our diaspora should have a voice and there should be a TD or senator to 2 if so designated but to continue to have general voting rights feels wrong to me. Whatever about having it cut off after 5 years or so, but 15 is mental!

It's currently 15 for the UK and they want to push it out for life

BonnieSituation

eire4 wrote: »

I think we could easily create a foreign constituency so to speak that the diaspora vote for. That could elect 1-2 TD's say and give the diaspora a good voice without distorting anything within the Dail. Presidential wise as our head of state I think the diaspora should have a vote there same as everyone else living in Ireland.

I think a diaspora constituency would level the calls for presidential voting. In essence I would love to open the franchise to vote for the president, but it's something that we need to do carefully given the amount of Irish citizens abroad.

However tomorrow, I'd allow presidential voting for those living in the North. That's one thing to be done.

Anyway, we're way off topic.

eire4

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I think a diaspora constituency would level the calls for presidential voting. In essence I would love to open the franchise to vote for the president, but it's something that we need to do carefully given the amount of Irish citizens abroad.

However tomorrow, I'd allow presidential voting for those living in the North. That's one thing to be done.

Anyway, we're way off topic.

You could put the restriction in that the citizen must be Irish born or born to Irish born parents. That would address the issue you bring up there IMHO.

eire4

fvp4 wrote: »

Irish passports are too easy to get to allow anybody with a passport vote. We might get Trump, otherwise.

So restrict the franchise to Irish born citizens or those whos parents are Irish born.

Capt'n Midnight

Candidate says party cleared him to run.
Tory sleeze or party incompetence ? The offence was 30 years ago but rules are rules. Is there a penalty for false declarations and if so will it be imposed ?

A candidate running to be Wiltshire's next Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) has been disbarred after a historical driving offence emerged.

Jonathon Seed PCC election rerun will cost more than £1m may even be up to £1.4m

eire4

eire4 wrote: »

So restrict the franchise to Irish born citizens or those whos parents are Irish born.

Parents being Irish born would still bring in lots of people. I don’t get it and I have lived abroad. It gives certain groups of people two votes. Choose one, maybe, where you live or where you were from.

eire4

fvp4 wrote: »

Parents being Irish born would still bring in lots of people. I don’t get it and I have lived abroad. It gives certain groups of people two votes. Choose one, maybe, where you live or where you were from.

Most estimates would put the number at about 1 million. That is why you have a separate foreign Dail constituency with 1-2 TD's so those numbers do not distort the Dail and yet give the dispora voice and a stake in the country and an incentive to make more direct contributions to the country.

Sam Russell

eire4 wrote: »

Most estimates would put the number at about 1 million. That is why you have a separate foreign Dail constituency with 1-2 TD's so those numbers do not distort the Dail and yet give the dispora voice and a stake in the country and an incentive to make more direct contributions to the country.

Would the voters pay Irish tax? Would the TDs they elect be allowed to vote on money matters? So if they could, we could end up with taxation being decided by voters that do not pay any taxes here.

There are too many Irish citizens to vote for the president as it would distort the vote - we could end up with Boat Mc Boatface type of election following a stupid social media campaign.

NI might be an option, but not just now. There is too much unrest there and its getting more unstable.

PommieBast

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Candidate says party cleared him to run.
Tory sleeze or party incompetence ? The offence was 30 years ago but rules are rules. Is there a penalty for false declarations and if so will it be imposed ?

Apparently it was declared but he was advised it would not be an issue.

PommieBast

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would the voters pay Irish tax? Would the TDs they elect be allowed to vote on money matters? So if they could, we could end up with taxation being decided by voters that do not pay any taxes here.

Hmm.. Think Ireland already has that problem.

breezy1985

This bill is also likely to have a change to FPTP for mayoral elections. Talk about going backwards

Peregrinus

PommieBast wrote: »

Apparently it was declared but he was advised it would not be an issue.

He declared it to the party, who apparently advised him that it wasn't an issue. The papers he lodged with the election officials didn't detail his convictions; they just included a generic declaration that he was qualified to run, which he signed in reliance on the advice from the party that his conviction didn't disbar him.

Doesn't say much for the professionalism and competence of the Tory party but, hey, no surprise there.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would the voters pay Irish tax? Would the TDs they elect be allowed to vote on money matters? So if they could, we could end up with taxation being decided by voters that do not pay any taxes here.

Why the focus on tax? The representation of non-residents in the legislature means that non-residents get to join in making the full range of laws, none of which they will be subject to. That seems to be fundamentally objectionable on republican and democratic grounds.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why the focus on tax? The representation of non-residents in the legislature means that non-residents get to join in making the full range of laws, none of which they will be subject to. That seems to be fundamentally objectionable on republican and democratic grounds.

Countries are known to apply discriminatory fiscal rates and practices on expatriates who retain taxable income and/or assets in their home country, dual taxation treaties notwithstanding. It’s a typical measure when trying to hinder an ongoing brain drain, for example.

France certainly is one, I’m old enough to remember when the government amended tax legislation overnight, to apply a minimum 25% tax rate from the first €0.01 earned in France (edit for clarity: for expatriates), completely outside the progressive rates and bands/thresholds applicable to residents: it turned my modest rental income on a studio flat (on which I’d been paying standard income tax until then) into a loss-maker.

Last year, France amended the taxation basis applicable to border workers, whose overseas earnings, until then, were excluded from the total taxable income calculation in France altogether when already taxed at source in the working country. The amendment looks inconsequential, when the government is giving a tax credit equivalent to the tax already paid in the working country...but the calculation basis has been modified to relate to the gross foreign earnings (ie the tax credit does not include social contributions etc.), rather than the net foreign earnings. So border workers, particularly couples submitting a joint declaration in France, are now effectively double-taxed (lightly, we’re talking a few €100s more per year on average...but still). Now these are not expatriates, and will be voting for their Député etc. but the ‘principle’ of the State robbing expatriate/foreign-working Paul to pay Pierre, because Paul is a minority group without much political clout nor popular likeability, stands - and it’s as old as the hills.

It’s for the little story and a bit of context, to illustrate the point that it’s not because someone is expatriate, that they are relieved of any and all fiscal obligations in their home country; and without much visibility, a surfeit of stereotyping, and absent any democratic representation, they are as easy a target for politically-expedient ‘othering’ by politicians after some populist boost, as immigrants, benefit scroungers and assorted other ‘traitors’.

listermint

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The real interesting thing is why this is such a priority for the government when they use the pandemic as an excuse to explain why other much more important issues are put on the long finger. One single line on social care in the queens speech while voter id, which is solving no clearly outlined problem, gets prominent billing.

As with literally everything the Tories do this change has to benefit them. Any other emigrants from the UK who think this is being done to help them in some way may be delusional.

The cynic in me suspects Brexit has in itself prompted many Tories and donors to exit the UK and claim citizenship rights all over the shop. With those countries residences number of days laws etc this probably excludes these emigrants from voting. But the Tories are changing that to allow it.


It never ever benefits anyone else. I'm sure they've done the numbers several times over.

Joe_ Public

listermint wrote: »

As with literally everything the Tories do this change has to benefit them. Any other emigrants from the UK who think this is being done to help them in some way may be delusional.

The cynic in me suspects Brexit has in itself prompted many Tories and donors to exit the UK and claim citizenship rights all over the shop. With those countries residences number of days laws etc this probably excludes these emigrants from voting. But the Tories are changing that to allow it.


It never ever benefits anyone else. I'm sure they've done the numbers several times over.

Like one labour mp asked yesterday, why is all this electoral stuff such a priority when the government itself keeps saying it must be all about the recovery. They are limited to introducing 30 government bills per session and yet this is up near the top of their list. Who is making a deal about this only themselves and while i dont have a strong opinion on emigrants voting one way or another, there is absolutely zero question but that switching to FPTP for metro mayor elections is just purely to benefit the tories. That is what truly exposes the whole enterprise for what it is.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

Countries are known to apply discriminatory fiscal rates and practices on expatriates who retain taxable income and/or assets in their home country, dual taxation treaties notwithstanding . . .

Couple of thoughts:

First, that's not an argument for giving non-resident citizens the vote, since (a) there are many non-resident citizens who don't have assets in their country of citizen, and (b) there are many non-resident non-citizens who do. What you are constructing here is an argument in favour of granting votes to non-residents who own property in the country, regardless of their citizenship.

Secondly, it's an argument that cuts both ways. Non-residents can vote for parties that advocate, say, authoritarian law-and-order policies knowing that they won't be vulnerable to the abuse of police power or the erosion of rights, or they can vote for radical economic or social policies knowing that they won't have to live with the consequences. They get to make laws whose consequences they don't have to live with - consequences that may be much more profound than the tax rate on the deposit account that they still keep at home.

We have a particular problem in Ireland, with the very large number of non-resident citizens. Others have suggested that we address this by having limited representation for non-residents, or by confining voting rights to, e.g. non-reisdent citizens who were born in Ireland. But this offends agains the principle of equality before the law; it means we now have — literally — second-class citizens with restricted voting rights. No. Just no.

It seems to me that those who live under the law get to participate in making the law; those who don't, don't. If I was going to make any change to improve Irish democracy, it would be extending the voting rights of resident non-citizens, rather than non-resident citizens.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would the voters pay Irish tax? Would the TDs they elect be allowed to vote on money matters? So if they could, we could end up with taxation being decided by voters that do not pay any taxes here.

Why the focus on tax? The representation of non-residents in the legislature means that non-residents get to join in making the full range of laws, none of which they will be subject to. That seems to be fundamentally objectionable on republican and democratic grounds.

It was a reference to the Boston Tea Party - No taxation without representation - but the other side of the coin.

Of course, the laws should only be made by those that will be subject to them as far as possible.

Podge_irl

fvp4 wrote: »

Parents being Irish born would still bring in lots of people. I don’t get it and I have lived abroad. It gives certain groups of people two votes. Choose one, maybe, where you live or where you were from.

A rather simple means of avoiding the problem is requiring you to be resident in order to first register to vote. This I believe is what the UK does.

What ability anyone has to vote in another country/jurisdiction is none of the business of the Irish people/government really.

PommieBast

listermint wrote: »

The cynic in me suspects Brexit has in itself prompted many Tories and donors to exit the UK and claim citizenship rights all over the shop. With those countries residences number of days laws etc this probably excludes these emigrants from voting. But the Tories are changing that to allow it.

You mean like Nigel Lawson?

breezy1985

SNIP. No insults.

listermint

PommieBast wrote: »

You mean like Nigel Lawson?

Exactly like that. These people donate alot of money to the Tories they won't want to lose any UK privileges like voting or whatever so they'll have the party accommodate that .

VinLieger

PommieBast wrote: »

Hmm.. Think Ireland already has that problem.

Not the same at all, income tax only makes up about 30% of our overall tax revenue, when someone isn't present in the country at all as was being suggested for a disapora constituency you miss out on everything else thats makes up the other 70% like VAT, road tax, alcohol, tobacco or fuel excise and property tax to name but a few

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

Couple of thoughts:

First, that's not an argument for giving non-resident citizens the vote, since (a) there are many non-resident citizens who don't have assets in their country of citizen, and (b) there are many non-resident non-citizens who do. What you are constructing here is an argument in favour of granting votes to non-residents who own property in the country, regardless of their citizenship.

Absolutely not.

The central plank of my argument is that the right to vote is (should be) a fundamental right intrinsically linked with citizenship regardless of residence (see bottom of post) and asset ownership.

Residence should have a role in segregating which polls to allow foreign vote for, certainly. Clearly, it is nonsensical to expect a foreign residing citizen to be allowed to vote in a poll electing a local representative (mayor, department/local councillor, department/regional MP/TD/etc).

But removing the right to vote entirely, notably in respect of representative(s) with foreign policy-making powers (such as a head of state), is de facto creating a second class of citizenry.

Secondly, it's an argument that cuts both ways. Non-residents can vote for parties that advocate, say, authoritarian law-and-order policies knowing that they won't be vulnerable to the abuse of police power or the erosion of rights, or they can vote for radical economic or social policies knowing that they won't have to live with the consequences. They get to make laws whose consequences they don't have to live with - consequences that may be much more profound than the tax rate on the deposit account that they still keep at home.

I don’t disagree that the argument cuts both ways, but so does your hypothesis based on a populist choice/vote: you need only look at the plight of the 1.5m British residing in the EU27 since Brexit, left to their own devices by successive British governments for years and longer, and still now, notwithstanding that the few hundred thousands of Costa-living gammony Brits may have voted Brexit/Conservatives had they been enfranchised to vote.

We have a particular problem in Ireland, with the very large number of non-resident citizens. Others have suggested that we address this by having limited representation for non-residents, or by confining voting rights to, e.g. non-reisdent citizens who were born in Ireland. But this offends agains the principle of equality before the law; it means we now have — literally — second-class citizens with restricted voting rights. No. Just no.

Do non-resident Irish citizens currently have full voting rights, or none? That is not clear from the above, sorry, and I am unfamiliar with Irish constitutional rights in that particular respect.

If they have none, then they already are second-class citizens, just like Brits who expatriated more than 15 years ago.

It seems to me that those who live under the law get to participate in making the law; those who don't, don't. If I was going to make any change to improve Irish democracy, it would be extending the voting rights of resident non-citizens, rather than non-resident citizens.

That has long been done in e.g.the UK with opening local elections to resident non-citizens (EU27s), likewise regional EU elections when they still had MEPs.

Ultimately, the issue turns on the constitutional definition of citizenship, ie whether it considers the right to vote an inalienable aspect of it or not (and the argument is whether one agrees with that, or not). France considers it so, hence overseas constituencies and votes-from-abroad for the President. Other countries are free to do as they please, fully allowing for the size of the electoral bias which their respective diasporas could induce.

breezy1985

Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos also left for Monaco after being a staunch brexiter and moved production of his proud new British car to France.

Didn't mean any offense earlier. It was a pun on his name

PommieBast

breezy1985 wrote: »

Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos also left for Monaco after being a staunch brexiter and moved production of his proud new British car to France

It is James Dyson I reserve the most venom for. Used an EU grant to build a factory somewhere in Eastern Europe and then moved it to Malaysia at the earliest opportunity.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Some off topic posts removed.

Snickers Man

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Say what you like about Mandelson, he knows how to win elections. ......Labour need to stop trying to appeal to Guardian opinion writers and more to ordinary voters - even if that means pandering to prejudices that the more "enlightened" in labour find ghastly.

I quite agree. That is absolutely what Labour should do. And it should be encouraged to do that by the left-leaning middle class "manning up" (if you'll excuse the gendered language) and deserting it for the Lib Dems. In fact, if you look closely, it could already be happening....:)

ambro25 wrote: »

A party defining itself with different topics and policies...gets heard better than the other,

https://twitter.com/markpack/status/1391670678424805379?s=20

Yes. Mandelson knew how to get a party elected. He, Blair and Brown led the most successful and longest lived Labour regime in British history. It was in power for 13 years, twice as long as Harold Wilson's regime in the 1960s, and won three elections in a row. Unprecedented. For Labour.

They did that by turning Labour into a party of the middle class. Not the ultranationalist hard-core right-wing middle class that will always vote Tory, but the aspirant, well-educated sons and daughters of the working class of an earlier generation who typically voted Labour.
Blair's success was in ditching the hard-core socialism to which Labour had committed itself in response to the Thatcher era and instead presenting itself as the true party of the decent, well-educated, compassionate middle class who had got to be middle class thanks to one of the most generous welfare states in the world.

What did you expect to happen to the sons and daughters of miners, factory assembly line workers, manual labourers etc once the state had paid for them to receive an excellent school education plus (until recently at least) full fees and a generous maintenance grant to attend university? Do you really think they were all going to go back "down t'pit" with their BAs, MScs and PhDs?

No. Some of the new middle class moved smoothly into the ranks of the Tories (Think Norman Tebbitt as their exemplar) but many wanted to remain true to their working class roots and so continued to vote Labour. But Labour had to change (New Labour) to accommodate them. As a consequence, one half of the Labour Party now cordially detests the other like never before.

It was always a coalition between socialist ideologues (eg the Fabian Society) and the Trade Union movement who were unashamed and often militant advocates for the working class. But who is the working class now?

Part of the trouble is the British first past the post system which cannot handle a multiplicity of options. You've basically got a choice between A or B. Blue or Red. Left or Right. So there is a natural disinclination to vote for a "third party" because you are only splitting a vote. That notwithstanding, at the last couple of elections the Lib Dems got more votes nationally than the Scottish Nationalists, the DUP, Sinn Fein, the SDLP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens PUT TOGETHER, yet only ended up with a fraction of the seats.

The British middle class that doesn't want to be Tory needs to put Labour out of its misery. That class has no business being in the Labour party which is a socialist anachronism. Labour played its part in reshaping Britain in the 20th century. It constructed a highly successful welfare state in the post war years and much of it is still in place, notably the NHS which the British people regard with a huge amount of pride and rightly so. But Labour's work here is done and many of its current supporters should just ride off into the sunset.

That work has also transformed the working class into a diverse breed of people which cannot be represented by a party which still pretends that it is entitled to the unquestioning support of those people who have NOT progressed with the welfare state, while also representing the best interests of the educated middle class. The former used to have their mining jobs, their factories, their labouring jobs. Most of them have gone now.

Mines were closed for strategic political reasons (unions too big for their boots, from a Tory viewpoint) and will not be re-opened for environmental reasons. Factory jobs have been lost to automation, and some jobs, especially in construction and agriculture, have been devalued by immigration. That last factor has allowed charlatans like Farage to claim that limitless immigration is the main concern for British people but it really isn't. It's the 21st century with all its globe-shrinking Information and Communications Technology that is disrupting the old certainties. And there are MANY people in Britain who don't want to entrust buffoons like Boris to chart their way through it.

The middle class should assert itself as the main opposition to Bombastic Brexity Britannia. What has it got to lose? It is poised to take many disillusioned Labour voters, denounced as "Woke" "PC" "Cancel-Culture" "Gender fluid" "Privileged" Metrosexual muppets by their own party and could also pick up many of the human wing of the Conservative party. Those "Conservatives with a heart" people who have similarly been despised down through the decades by the hard-core of their own party. They used to be called "Appeasers", then "Wets" in the Thatcher era. Now they're "Remoaners". They have no place in today's ERG-dominated Tory party and they should recognise it.

It takes a lot for the two sides of the see-saw in Britains FPTP system to realign. But I think now's the time. In the year that Shirley Williams finally passed away, 40 years after she, Jenkins, Owen and Rogers left the Labour party their general point of view might be close to representing the majority of British people.

Social Democracy for slow learners!

MrMusician18

It's an interesting proposition but its a shame it wouldn't work. Both Labour and the Tories are parties that are effectively permanent coalitions of the various sub groups within them. If UKs labour was an Irish party it would effectively be the party that would stretch from PBP all the way to the socially liberal end of FG. It has to be that way because of the FPTP voting system and you need all voters of your shade to row in behind you. By splitting out the centre left voters for a new party (we shall call New Centre Left -NCL), you will lose the harder left voters that are essential to win seats in the Westminster system resulting in neither Labour or NCL taking the seat and probably handing it to the conservatives.

It would take at least a couple of election cycles for consolidation to occur around Labour or the NCL and in order to do so becoming that broad church. Something which sounds shockingly like current Labour, so what's the point?

The Blair years were such a success because him and his team convinced the northern socialists and unions to hold their nose as he took the party in a more cosmopolitan centre right economic position. Sadly for the cosmopolitans, a large chunk of voters have moved rightwards socially and flipped to the Tories.

So the Labour party do indeed have a choice - split out the centre left into NCL to compete with rLabour and the Lib Dems and ensure they split the vote and let the Tories rule for a generation, continue as they are and let the Tories rule for a generation or shift somewhat right socially to the electorate (the cosmos will have to hold their nose this time) and make themselves more electable.

BonnieSituation

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's an interesting proposition but its a shame it wouldn't work. Both Labour and the Tories are parties that are effectively permanent coalitions of the various sub groups within them. If UKs labour was an Irish party it would effectively be the party that would stretch from PBP all the way to the socially liberal end of FG. It has to be that way because of the FPTP voting system and you need all voters of your shade to row in behind you. By splitting out the centre left voters for a new party (we shall call New Centre Left -NCL), you will lose the harder left voters that are essential to win seats in the Westminster system resulting in neither Labour or NCL taking the seat and probably handing it to the conservatives.

It would take at least a couple of election cycles for consolidation to occur around Labour or the NCL and in order to do so becoming that broad church. Something which sounds shockingly like current Labour, so what's the point?

The Blair years were such a success because him and his team convinced the northern socialists and unions to hold their nose as he took the party in a more cosmopolitan centre right economic position. Sadly for the cosmopolitans, a large chunk of voters have moved rightwards socially and flipped to the Tories.

So the Labour party do indeed have a choice - split out the centre left into NCL to compete with rLabour and the Lib Dems and ensure they split the vote and let the Tories rule for a generation, continue as they are and let the Tories rule for a generation or shift somewhat right socially to the electorate (the cosmos will have to hold their nose this time) and make themselves more electable.

As long as FPTP and the Lib Dems exist in their current form, it just feels like it will be a Tory hegemony forever more.

In an ideal world that insists on FPTP remaining, the LibDems would just split and merge with the other parties as appropriate.

The only good things that a Tory hegemony bring to the party are the run to Scottish independence and a UI. So it's hard not to have a whole "you reap what you sow" feeling for UK and in particular English voters given I'll likely get what I want from them.