Ok, not football at all, but it matters, eventually.

[Monaco_Totty]

"Stats as say".......exactly which stats? Migrants into the UK aren't entitled to vote unless and until their immigration status is confirmed, you would suggest it should be otherwise (I suspect there would be a degree of opposition in principle to such a change, here and most certainly in the (dis)United States of America.

And this level if supposed disenfranchisement is "due to it's antiquated Electoral registration system which is neither effective nor efficient apparently, currently". Says who?

Trump peddles lies and inaccurate street bev a use it suits his campaign of disinformation and confusion. I thought better of you, but the last post could have been penned by a Trump staffer wanting to diminish any criticism emanating from these shores.

You might not like what has happened in the UK since Brexit, but unlike the majority of those who've in this country you had the opportunity to exile yourself and took it. The majority are still here, still working, still going on hoiday ( here and abroad), still being educated from pre-school to University and beyond, still having their ills addressed by the NHS, still being cared for in their twilight years. We may not be all you would want, but we are what we need to be and compared to the French you seem to prefer I'll take Brits (of all creeds and colours), any day.

The U.K. Government on May 24th 2024 published a Electoral registration "response" to the Select Commitee report I quoted.
This was published under the 2022 to 2024 Sunak Conservative govt for their ridiculous "Levelling Up within Communities & Housing & the Electoral Commission which had required answers from then said PM Sunak.

Clive Betts, Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing & communities (LUHC) Commitee gave a very long address on the matter, for the record on March 24th 2024, so I'd suggest you read it in full via the UK Parliament Committee papers for Public view.
A simpler version for you can be found on the net under the banner "Millions of voters face being disenfranchised at next General Election". (If you cannot find it I shall endeavour to dig a link up for you).

The Government had commissioned Joseph Rowntree Foundation of York, a Charity who conducts & funds research aimed at solving Poverty in the UK which might inspire you to understand serious issues regarding lack of housing in the UK as JRF bought the problems of the "Electoral-register" into the debate originally via one of their monthly opinions papers for Govt recommendations which i read in full & I suggest you do likewise as my Dad had contributed to it 'voluntarily' for folks to digest on the need for affordable housing & the lack of it links to poverty.
Dad was an Actuary helping businesses predict financial impact of their strategic decision making, notably investment enterprises before changing direction to become a 'free-spirit' refurbishing stone built properties via a Stone reclamation business he set up in France, so housing & risk was his dabble before he retired at 60 & as many know he is tagged a Leeds Utd Superfan, which he'll admit is a kinda risky business too. Bought up on a council estate in Leeds, the son of East European migrants he has an interest in affordable housing hence his freebie help for Joseph Rowntree Foundation off/on & obviously has an understanding of the word 'migrant' & all its meanings, as do I.

Further, while dictionary definitions sometimes distinguish 'immigrants' – people who are, or intend to be, settled in their new country – from 'migrants' who are termed temporarily resident, 'immigrant' and 'migrant' (as well as 'foreigner') are often used interchangeably in Public debate and even among Research specialists reports, such are the abnormalities within English legal language, please note the term migrant is legal to use in the UK but there is NO internationally accepted legal definition of the term as a migrant is someone who has left their home either within their borders for a variety of reasons which can be temporary or permanent and the UK Observatory defines the migrant population as the foreign born population of the UK from different nationalities crossing boundaries with the intention of staying at least one year.
Migrant workers are people who come to countries to work seasonal, part time & full time - The United Nations & EU have condemned the term illegal to define people moving across borders as the term is dehumanising, immoral & contributes to demonising of all migrant communities who have been authorised to settle.

Leeds Mad threads are for 'Public Debate' as far as I'm concerned & my term 'migrant' was taken from a said UK government Public address, namely a UK government white paper, for the record.
So I'd suggest you take that matter up with the appropriate UK Select Commitee Bench in the House of Lords or alternatively get a life & join me in France for a while & see the UK from a different perspective than 'yours view is presently' with regard to how the establishment conducts itself in who is actually in the UK & registered on it's Electoral records whilst the UK Government refuses to withdraw from the EU 1998 Human Rights convention.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/who-counts-as-a-migrant-definitions-and-their-consequences/

Further, All qualifying Commonwealth citizens currently must be resident in the UK and either have leave to remain in the UK or not require leave. Your leave to remain can be indefinite, or time limited. You can see if you have leave to remain in the UK on letters from the Home Office, or by using the Home Office’s tool which was also the case prior to Brexit, many came to work as 'migrants' or immigrants or foreigner in terminology and most public documents used the term "migrant" as did I before Brexit & still now.

It's a shame that your obsessive "Pro Brit sabre rattling stance" is not replicated more positively towards supporting Leeds United Football club in any capacity onto this great free Public Forum, for the record.

Keep digging at me mate as you wish - as water off this Euro ducks chicks back.

https://www.migrantdemos.org.uk/can-i-vote

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8985/

Obtaining Citizenship prior to Brexit for many 'migrants' ?
The important number to remember when applying for British Citizenship is six years. This is the total time you need to live in the UK before you qualify for naturalisation. This is the sum of five years before receiving your Document Certifying Permanent Residence, and then one year with permanent residence status before applying for British Citizenship.

To obtain British Citizenship, you must also have satisfied the following below requirements & many did (including my Grandparents) hence my legal terminology of 'migrants' unlike the appalling misuse of the term of some UK broadcasters like GB news while spreading its right-wing poison that all migrants are illegal & arrive in the UK via the abhorrent practice of people smuggling gangs.

1.you cannot have been outside the UK for more than 450 days in the past five years

2.you cannot have been outside the UK for more than 90 days in the past 12 months

3.you cannot be in violation of any UK immigration laws, and you must be of good character.
4.you can prove you will continue to live in the UK.
you have passed the Life in the UK Test and English language requirements.
5.If your spouse or legal partner is a British citizen, there are different requirements. Parents can apply on behalf of children under 18 years. They will be exempt from having to sit the Life in the UK Test.

If you read everything I suggest in the time it will take, then hopefully we will see you back on here in May 2025 when our team of Johnnie Foreigners & migrants & immigrants lifts the Championship Trophy including Frenchmen one of which you verbally abused publicly which caused upset & to be fair nearly finished my involvement on here.
Just saying
Totty Xxxx

[spaldy]

Our voter laws are a hodge-podge in the the US as they administered by each of the states. However, there is an over- riding federal law that you must be a US citizen to vote in federal elections.

Many states have no voter ID requirement. You just tell the polling station your address and you vote. You also have voter registration at the motor vehicle license branch so when they get a drivers license they can also register to vote. Many states issue drivers licenses to non citizens. You also have a lot of states that don't clear off dead people or residents that have moved out of state. The final absurdity is that many states automatically mail out ballots to any resident that's ever been registered at that address. My co worker lives in an apartment and received 8 ballots a month agao for people that listed this address at one time or another. She could vote 8 times if she didn't have ethics. Many don't. Especially from one party. It's how you'll see some precincts consistent vote in the 80%+ range but they have little or no activity at the polling stations. Some precincts actually had over 100% turnout.

These states are all "blue" (democrat). It's obvious that the voting process is flawed but any attempt to correct concerns on cheating are met with roars of racism, voter suppression and other such nonsense. Even a simple thing like deleting dead people when the death certificate is filed or a simple state issued photo ID and elimination of automatic mailing of ballots is voter suppression.

The cheating consistently runs one way and is getting more and more common. It's really starting to affect the belief in the integrity of the US election system and is undermining the core belief in our country. It's incredibly ironic when the US questions the integrity of another countries election system, as we are known to do, when ours is not any better and often worse than many other countries.

I think the election fraud should be a felony which in the US is a pretty serious matter. Loss of voting rights, loss of ability to run for office and often jail time. It's a mark on your criminal record for life. If you are government worker and convicted you lose your pension.

A lot of people fought and died for the right of all of us to vote. It's considered trite and old fashioned by many but the option of rule by a dictator or oligarchy is not particularly attractive to many.

[ozleeds]

World has changed for the worse. As a 10 year old in 72 i had no choice as family decided to move to the other side of the world for the term BETTER LIFE. At the time that's what it was as it was hard but migrants mainly Europeans worked hard society thrived as European traditions were introduced which in term the country changed it's name to the LUCKY COUNTRY. After the 70s they opened up immigration introducing firstly Asians whom in turn destroyed what was build by not blending in with society creating there own towns and hate or some people call it racism started. Further down the road they brought in all the middle eastern namely Lebanese whom in turn brought in terror extortions and illegality like drugs so on. Taking over bikie gangs and living towns and city's in fear as people don't know what will happen next. Lastly introducing the Sudanese whom in turn brought in gangs whom run around with machete knives guns and anything they can get illegally breaking into house stealing cars and murdering and anything else in there way. Lucky Country has become a Farse where locals are prisoners in there own country and Europeans are the minority. Asians Afrikaans middle eastern, Asians include Indian's and Chinese run this country and the so called Nazis are BS it's just young Locals whom have had enough and want to correct what the so called do gooder's oldies have created and are Fed up. And i can see it is not only here but they have taken over all over western societies even though they were warned that this would happen they went ahead and still bring in boat loads every year.
It has changed so much I'm ashamed to call myself Australian as i don't feel it anymore as all the love I had for this country and it's people has quickly evaporated. PS Football is no different look at yourselves owned by criminals and foreigner corporations with only one interest at heart money and it's so bad most of the top teams have not gotten any English born players of white colour.
Enjoy the ride as I for one have given up worrying for the next generations to come as they won't know any better as the pre descendant's have destroyed what once was called humanity with greed, destruction and fear.
Hail whoever can save us.

[WTF11]

Our voter laws are a hodge-podge in the the US as they administered by each of the states. However, there is an over- riding federal law that you must be a US citizen to vote in federal elections.

Many states have no voter ID requirement. You just tell the polling station your address and you vote. You also have voter registration at the motor vehicle license branch so when they get a drivers license they can also register to vote. Many states issue drivers licenses to non citizens. You also have a lot of states that don't clear off dead people or residents that have moved out of state. The final absurdity is that many states automatically mail out ballots to any resident that's ever been registered at that address. My co worker lives in an apartment and received 8 ballots a month agao for people that listed this address at one time or another. She could vote 8 times if she didn't have ethics. Many don't. Especially from one party. It's how you'll see some precincts consistent vote in the 80%+ range but they have little or no activity at the polling stations. Some precincts actually had over 100% turnout.

These states are all "blue" (democrat). It's obvious that the voting process is flawed but any attempt to correct concerns on cheating are met with roars of racism, voter suppression and other such nonsense. Even a simple thing like deleting dead people when the death certificate is filed or a simple state issued photo ID and elimination of automatic mailing of ballots is voter suppression.

The cheating consistently runs one way and is getting more and more common. It's really starting to affect the belief in the integrity of the US election system and is undermining the core belief in our country. It's incredibly ironic when the US questions the integrity of another countries election system, as we are known to do, when ours is not any better and often worse than many other countries.

I think the election fraud should be a felony which in the US is a pretty serious matter. Loss of voting rights, loss of ability to run for office and often jail time. It's a mark on your criminal record for life. If you are government worker and convicted you lose your pension.

A lot of people fought and died for the right of all of us to vote. It's considered trite and old fashioned by many but the option of rule by a dictator or oligarchy is not particularly attractive to many.

We may disagree on a great many things, clearly we do on certain political matters, but as to statement and the sentiment expressed in your final sentence, AMEN

[Orgoner]

Must admit I've been biting my tongue on this one, at least in terms of floating my thoughts and opinions out there as someone who's experienced (and voted in) elections on both sides of the Pond.

I guess the one observation I would make is that I really don't care for the way in which the presidential election is run. It isn't particularly democratic because, as it turns out, individual votes don't carry equal value.

It probably hasn't been overly emphasized in the UK, but the final result is determined by votes from an electoral college, which is essentially a combination of each individual state treated as a "first past the post" unit, with the number of votes they assign loosely based on the population of that state.

To "win" the electoral college, a candidate has to garner 270 votes.

Forty-odd of the states lean fairly solidly in one direction or the other (Red=Republican ("sort of" Conservative), Blue=Democrat ("sort of" Labour)), so their electoral votes are all but nailed-on as assigned to one candidate or the other as they are extremely unlikely to flip the other way..

Of the remaining states, they are either small fry (e.g. New Hampshire, which, though fairly purple. only has four electoral college votes) or larger "swing" states (the seven you've probably been hearing about in the news) where the presidential race is really taking place because of the number of electoral college votes they carry.

An individual vote in a swing state is therefore likely to be much more important than any vote in any of the other states.

Seems wrong to me: not that the majority can always be relied upon to vote sensibly, but it seems to me that the president should be the candidate receiving the most individual votes from individual people, not effectively chosen by a handful of larger purple states that may not look like much of the rest of the country.

All that said, it could absolutely be argued that a state like New Hampshire has an outsized influence on the Senate, for which each of the fifty states elect two candidates.

The House of Representatives is, as its name suggests, much more representative as it is made up of officials elected from similarly sized distructs (although there seems to be an awful lot of gerrymandering of these for political purposes).

I'll shut up as this stuff tends to get me annoyed and I can feel my hackles rising...

[WTF11]

Must admit I've been biting my tongue on this one, at least in terms of floating my thoughts and opinions out there as someone who's experienced (and voted in) elections on both sides of the Pond.

I guess the one observation I would make is that I really don't care for the way in which the presidential election is run. It isn't particularly democratic because, as it turns out, individual votes don't carry equal value.

It probably hasn't been overly emphasized in the UK, but the final result is determined by votes from an electoral college, which is essentially a combination of each individual state treated as a "first past the post" unit, with the number of votes they assign loosely based on the population of that state.

To "win" the electoral college, a candidate has to garner 270 votes.

Forty-odd of the states lean fairly solidly in one direction or the other (Red=Republican ("sort of" Conservative), Blue=Democrat ("sort of" Labour)), so their electoral votes are all but nailed-on as assigned to one candidate or the other as they are extremely unlikely to flip the other way..

Of the remaining states, they are either small fry (e.g. New Hampshire, which, though fairly purple. only has four electoral college votes) or larger "swing" states (the seven you've probably been hearing about in the news) where the presidential race is really taking place because of the number of electoral college votes they carry.

An individual vote in a swing state is therefore likely to be much more important than any vote in any of the other states.

Seems wrong to me: not that the majority can always be relied upon to vote sensibly, but it seems to me that the president should be the candidate receiving the most individual votes from individual people, not effectively chosen by a handful of larger purple states that may not look like much of the rest of the country.

All that said, it could absolutely be argued that a state like New Hampshire has an outsized influence on the Senate, for which each of the fifty states elect two candidates.

The House of Representatives is, as its name suggests, much more representative as it is made up of officials elected from similarly sized distructs (although there seems to be an awful lot of gerrymandering of these for political purposes).

I'll shut up as this stuff tends to get me annoyed and I can feel my hackles rising...

Hi Orgs,

You would be surprised at the amount of attention, and detail, that the US election attracts (or not, maybe). It's not like the 5 mobile messages a day and numerous follow-up texts to voters in the swing states like Pennsylvania featured on our BBC news today, or the claim by the Harris campaign to have "knocked on the door" of 3 million voters over the weekend!, but it is VERY in-depth considering. I agree with you regarding the popular vote vs electoral college. Folks might not like the outcome but at least they would know who really won (unless of course it was Trump in present circumstances, in which case who would know?)

Proportional representation is often suggested as a way of addressing the issues you mention regarding the Senate and House of Representatives (kind of equivalent to our House of Commons and House of Lords except the Lords aren't voted for, they are appointed (or if hereditary peers, the seat is passed won the generations). Thing is, proportional representation tends to deliver coalition government, not always (or ever?) a good thing (Israel is an example of said system, where religious minority parties are very powerful))

[Orgoner]

Proportional representation seems to be a good idea in principle, but, as you suggest, it doesn't seem to actually deliver that much when push comes to shove.

I have paid a fair bit of attention to my various local candidates and like some from both sides of the main parties and will be voting for them accordingly, not on blind party loyalty.

I really don't care for either Trump or Harris, so perhaps my perceived lack of representation there is a moot point.

I'll be glad when it's all over, although these things have a habit of starting up again almost immediately.

[WTF11]

Trumps latest threat if he were to win......"It will be so good, maybe a bit nasty to start, but that's ok...." and if he loses?

How have the States managed to give us such a divided nation?

[Orgoner]

I'm not sure how the other US-based posters are set up, but taxation is the one area that totally does my head in.

It takes me a solid week every year to put together and successfully file my US Federal and NH State taxes as well as an F-BAR, which is a detailed document the US government demands that makes me list (in excrutiating detail) all of my non-US financial holdings and interests, no matter how insignificant they might be (seemingly under pain of death).

I fully acknowledge that taxes are an inevitable part of life and, to a certain extent, I have a percentage figure in my head that I simply never consider to be mine to use so that it doesn't come as a total shock when it comes to settle up every April 15 (I pay quarterly estimated bills to the IRS and NH to keep the final sticker shock to a minimum).

As an immediate example, I have a local tax bill in front of me right now. I have to pay $15k a year to my town in order to live in a house that I own outright (no mortgage). Roughly $10k of this goes to a school that serves no useful purpose to me as I don't have kids. The balance gets munched up by the state, emergency services, roads, and other community projects. I guess this is the equivalent of a Council Tax bill in the UK?

NH has no state income tax (unlike most) and no separate city-based income taxes.

I can at least see how my local taxes are spent, even if they seem on the high side.

The federal taxes on the other hand...

I suspect the US is not the Utopia many foreigners believe it to be. It is definitely not a good place to live if you don't have funds, or at least the ability to earn them.

(I probably should've continued to bite my tongue)

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

One challenge Trimp presents it seems from this small Isle to the Decomcrats is actually a little amusing in that often what he says is just being funny and not meant literally but the sense of humour failure to o all things Trump means it seems to send them into a rage.

The Senate and the HoR can from the little I know block the more extreme stuff in the unlikely event it ever came to pass. It also ignores the fact that some of the stuff both parties have done over the last 20 years hasn’t always been that great.

Back to the UK the current government seems to treat the deprived areas in the UK with a degree of contempt if they deign to complain about fairness which having grown up in northern climes I find somewhat offensive and disheartening at the same time.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

Strangely (perhaps), agreed on all those points and as a pensioner with zero chance of increasing my earnings I'd happily slice off Starmers gentleman bits given the opportunity.

😎

[spaldy]

Orgs, not meaning to get you stirred up. However, two sides to look at the presidential election process. As you know we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. Big difference.

The other side of the electoral college is that it's the sole reason that the entire country is not controlled by a collection of large urban areas. You can see the brilliance of the founding fathers. You can see what happens when that happens at the state levels. Living down state IL, upstate New York or off the coast in California means you are basically without representation on any state or federal matters in those states. Chicago, New York City or So Cal or San Fran means you just pay taxes but have little or no input on how the state is run.

The whole intent was to provide equal representation as well as make it hard to pass laws/regulations. That's largely been destroyed when they passed the 17th amendment which made the senate a popular vote position. The senate, along with Judicial was intended to act as a "brake" on populist and mob rule that predominates in the House. With the 17th amendment the senate is little different that the house and when one party controls congress, the senate and the presidency it can just pass anything it wants regardless of the impact on the country. The $35,000,000,000,000 debt ($272,00 per citizen) is one simple example of not having guardrails on a system. This does even include trillions of dollars of liabilities that aren't included in "government accounting" on the debt.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

I think the 17th amendment along with the politicization of our public schools sealed our fate. The old Ben Franklin saying "'When people discover they can vote themselves money that is the end of the Republic'.

[Orgoner]

One challenge Trimp presents it seems from this small Isle to the Decomcrats is actually a little amusing in that often what he says is just being funny and not meant literally but the sense of humour failure to o all things Trump means it seems to send them into a rage.

The Senate and the HoR can from the little I know block the more extreme stuff in the unlikely event it ever came to pass. It also ignores the fact that some of the stuff both parties have done over the last 20 years hasn’t always been that great.

Back to the UK the current government seems to treat the deprived areas in the UK with a degree of contempt if they deign to complain about fairness which having grown up in northern climes I find somewhat offensive and disheartening at the same time.

It does seem as if he deliberately chooses to throw random stuff out there to amuse himself and stir up a "news" response, especially as he's been doing little else for at least a year now and he's no spring chicken.

I don't think anyone running for president is ever likely to be much more than a self-obsessed gobshyte and this pair is no exception.

I'm dreading hearing either of them pontificate on a regular basis over the next four years and, like Hopey suggests, am hopeful that a combination of the Senate and House of Representatives can keep the more ridiculous stuff (whichever side it comes from) in check and prevent the US from descending into a feral failed state.

To quote Private Frazer, "We're doomed, I tell you! Doomed!"

Anyway, football eh?!

[Orgoner]

Orgs, not meaning to get you stirred up. However, two sides to look at the presidential election process. As you know we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. Big difference.

The other side of the electoral college is that it's the sole reason that the entire country is not controlled by a collection of large urban areas. You can see the brilliance of the founding fathers. You can see what happens when that happens at the state levels. Living down state IL, upstate New York or off the coast in California means you are basically without representation on any state or federal matters in those states. Chicago, New York City or So Cal or San Fran means you just pay taxes but have little or no input on how the state is run.

The whole intent was to provide equal representation as well as make it hard to pass laws/regulations. That's largely been destroyed when they passed the 17th amendment which made the senate a popular vote position. The senate, along with Judicial was intended to act as a "brake" on populist and mob rule that predominates in the House. With the 17th amendment the senate is little different that the house and when one party controls congress, the senate and the presidency it can just pass anything it wants regardless of the impact on the country. The $35,000,000,000,000 debt ($272,00 per citizen) is one simple example of not having guardrails on a system. This does even include trillions of dollars of liabilities that aren't included in "government accounting" on the debt.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

I think the 17th amendment along with the politicization of our public schools sealed our fate. The old Ben Franklin saying "'When people discover they can vote themselves money that is the end of the Republic'.

You're not wrong. Even in NH, there is a big North/South divide.

Southern NH is not so different from Massachusetts, which has a much different vibe to those living North of where I live.

I guess no system is ever going to be perfect, but the whole election process seems more of a circus than anything else, even if important things are at stake.

[spaldy]

Said it earlier in the thread but it really, really, really is hard to believe with over 250,000,000 potential candidates that this is the best we could come up with. Of course, who in their right mind would want the job. You have to sell your soul and lose all sense of self identity.

Almost as hard to believe is the fact when Truman left the job in 1952 he packed up a U haul trailer and pulled it with a Chrysler that was loaned to him to head back to Independence Missouri to live in his 3 bedroom house. No secret service and no books, media or other money grabs. Just went back to normal life. I went through his house on a tour in the early 80's. it was little different than my Grandparents house in Pinckneyville IL. It just boggles the mind that this occurred just a few years before I was born.