You would obviously have exceptions for renovations, subject to reasonable proof that renovations are actually taking place (or planning approval is being sought for said renovations). Ditto for make-safe work if the house is deemed unsafe to live in.

I can’t really think of any other valid reasons.

As long as it’s cheaper to have somebody living in a house than just hoarding as much land as possible

Not necessarily. Some people just can’t be bothered with the hassle of figuring out renting it out. I’ve heard this is especially common with Chinese buyers since housing in China is viewed even more as an asset than it is here.

If someone buys it as an asset just meant to appreciate in value, the dividends from renting it out may be viewed as less important.

It also prevents the use of a house as a rarely-used holiday home. If someone spends a handful of weeks per year in a house, that is pretty much just as wasteful as leaving it empty full-time, as far as the housing market is concerned. Maybe that levy could be decreased proportional to how much time it actually is being used.

I’mma differ slightly and say that yes, they should be “allowed” to. But there should be a levy imposed on them if they do choose that. And the levy should be large enough that it vastly outstrips expected capital gains.

I suspect it probably would. But shouldn’t that be the user’s choice to make?

Damn autocorrect. Imma leave that up, it’s too funny.

Cos wasn’t coined for anything even remotely related to sex or gender. It’s just the Latin opposite of trans. Which honestly just makes whinging about the term from reactionaries like Musty all the more ridiculous.

He’s a soccer player and he disagrees with the ref’s decision. What more context do you need?

Soccer players are infamously fucking divas.

But MMP does that. I don’t understand how that description differs from regular MMP.

I have often wondered why MMP is always done using FPTP for the local component. Why not IRV + proportional top-ups?

I don’t really understand AMS as well as MMP, but I think the same question could be applied.

Aaaaaand this is why Labour will never countenance this within this parliament.

This is why it’s important to hammer home to them that this election is an anomaly. Look at all the elections since 2010. What would all those Parliaments have looked like in proportional elections?

FPTP helped Labour this week. It hurts them far more often.

I just had a brief look at AMS on Wikipedia but I’m struggling to understand it. They say it’s less proportional than MMP as used in New Zealand and Germany, but the brief description of how AMS works sounded very much like how MMP works. What’s the difference?

No. It’s Speedos.

In the analogy, budgies are cocks.

getting into pants was like this for me but only in natural areas

I spent way too long trying to figure out what this meant. Did you just start literally getting into (i.e. wearing) pants? Is it a sex metaphor? Did you develop a hobbyist interest in one specific type of clothing?

And then I read on and realised all that mental effort was wasted because it was just a mildly amusing typo. Ah well, thanks for the chuckle.

That might have worked in the TOS era. But ain’t know way Bones is gonna beat Data in hand to hand combat.

He probably should have been honest and upfront about it, but he also named their kid after something he obviously loves, and I think that’s great. If she loved the name before knowing its origin, she should love it even more for being associated with something that at least one parent thinks is beautiful.

An independent (SNP) and unionist (Labour) party would be hard-pressed to form a government.

Would they? Outside of the question of independence, the two parties agree on more than not, don’t they? If they alternative is no functioning government, couldn’t you see Labour giving some minor concession to the SNP (like maybe allowing Holyrood to have power over one or two of the things that was recently denied by the Supreme Court) in exchange for the SNP’s support in Confidence?

the big question would be how government is formed

I’m not really sure what you mean. (It doesn’t help that the rest of that paragraph is ridden by typos to the point of being unintelligible. Sorry.) Government would be formed the same way they do it in Germany or New Zealand or any of the many other countries with proportional systems. They would find a way to reach a majority by agreeing on whatever compromises are palatable to both sides. In a hypothetical where the SNP had way more seats, Labour might have to agree to a second independence referendum. If they really needed Green support they might agree to pass strong climate legislation. They might have to give the LibDems a couple of significant cabinet positions. Proportional systems force politicians to actually do politics and pass legislation that is supported by a majority of people, instead of giving a single party a majority of seats based on a minority of people supporting them.

Every day is a good day to criticise FPTP.

A proportional system would have been to Reform’s benefit, but it would also have been to the Green’s and SNP’s.

IRV would have actually been to Labour’s benefit in the two seats I randomly happened to notice. Though I’m sure there would also be some seats where it would’ve benefited the Tories.

But I think the most important thing is that belief in a better electoral system should not depend on which party world benefit. It should be about creating a more democratic outcome. And what we saw yesterday really highlighted how deeply undemocratic the UK is.

deleted by creator

and arguably worse than FPTP

Sorry but no. Absolutely no. The only downside is the ability to use it as an excuse not to upgrade to a proportional system in the future.

More complicated? Yeah, I guess. But not enough to actually matter. Not unless you think British people are just exceptionally stupid compared to Australians.

More disproportionate results? Impossible. They’re both single-winner systems. The key difference is that FPTP allows a plurality to win while IRV requires a majority. It might create a situation where it seems less proportionate, but that’s only because you reduce strategic voting so people are voting their true beliefs, so candidates that weren’t going to win under either system end up getting more votes under IRV. But the ultimate result is that the candidate who wins in each electorate is the one who had the most support.

They even brought in Rudd for a second go, which didn’t seem to be within the spirit of the game if I’m honest, but that’s Australia for you.

Is a particularly biting bit of satire on the way we usually hear about sports reporting.

I figure satire articles probably aren’t allowed in the general community, but hopefully it’s ok in the megathread? This was brilliant.

https://theshovel.com.au/2024/07/05/australia-loses-shortest-time-to-5-pms-ashes/