Enough. Sindy is not gonna happen for 20 years, if ever
It's done. The moment was 2014, as it turns out. And they came damn close
Rejoin too. Even after the tumult of recent weeks our membership terms would require us to join the Euro and people would say no.
Indeed. Eventually both sides will see sense and some kind of associate membership will be forged. The UK is never going to join the euro (within foreseeables) and never submit to full political union, but it is mutually beneficial to cooperate more over trade, science, education, travel. When the embers have dulled we will probably end up in some kind of quasi EEA/EFTA
Extremists on both sides will chafe but the appetite for another referendum or more arguments will be near-zero, especially with the extra menace of a hostile world - Putin, China, nationalist India, et al
I sometimes wonder if the "democratic west" will unite in an entirely new union, including Japan, SoKo, Oz, etc
Huge prize for Sunak to grasp. Is he bold enough?
Cameron should have pushed associate membership to the limit, rather than settling for his farcical "renegotiation". Of course, the EU never believed we would Brexit. Nor did Cameron (or at least, the people briefing him). But we did - and now we have an interesting opportunity to make that proposal - on our terms.
Would the EU push us away a second time? An associate membership that is outside "the Project", outside the Euro, permitted to enter other trade groupings (notably CPTPP - but to which we act as a bridge for the EU). We have "Brexited" enough to have honoured the 2016 referendum. But an outer circle that was still broadly aligned in trade and standards.
It would shake things up for the next election if he could deliver that.
Remain 2.0
No. Brexit 2.0
Do you remember when the first generation Mercedes Benz A class failed the moose test and was quickly withdrawn from showroom floors? Substantial modifications were required before a humble pie laden relaunch.
Enough. Sindy is not gonna happen for 20 years, if ever
It's done. The moment was 2014, as it turns out. And they came damn close
Rejoin too. Even after the tumult of recent weeks our membership terms would require us to join the Euro and people would say no.
Indeed. Eventually both sides will see sense and some kind of associate membership will be forged. The UK is never going to join the euro (within foreseeables) and never submit to full political union, but it is mutually beneficial to cooperate more over trade, science, education, travel. When the embers have dulled we will probably end up in some kind of quasi EEA/EFTA
Extremists on both sides will chafe but the appetite for another referendum or more arguments will be near-zero, especially with the extra menace of a hostile world - Putin, China, nationalist India, et al
I sometimes wonder if the "democratic west" will unite in an entirely new union, including Japan, SoKo, Oz, etc
Huge prize for Sunak to grasp. Is he bold enough?
Cameron should have pushed associate membership to the limit, rather than settling for his farcical "renegotiation". Of course, the EU never believed we would Brexit. Nor did Cameron (or at least, the people briefing him). But we did - and now we have an interesting opportunity to make that proposal - on our terms.
Would the EU push us away a second time? An associate membership that is outside "the Project", outside the Euro, permitted to enter other trade groupings (notably CPTPP - but to which we act as a bridge for the EU). We have "Brexited" enough to have honoured the 2016 referendum. But an outer circle that was still broadly aligned in trade and standards.
It would shake things up for the next election if he could deliver that.
It would be great. The EU just needs to be flexible on freedom of movement (ie the right to welfare benefits and priority in job applications, not visa free entrance
The Insider Advantage poll certainly makes a splash but it does have a very weird result .
The only poll to show such a huge split between the Governor and Senate races and the only one to show anything like that lead for Lake .
Even accounting for Hobbs stupid decision not to debate and call out Lake as an election denier that split looks suspect .
The poll could be seen as actually good news for Kelly because it looks pretty evident that this poll had a stronger than normal GOP lean even more than normal as it already has this bias .
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
Parties can't just decide what they think is best, of course - parties are constrained either way by public opinion, and they don't try to lose elections by betraying their core voters. Voters in PR systems are not stupider or more forgetful. I think the following statement is true in the UK too - attitudes toward your policies and performance on election day matter far more than the details of what exactly the last party leader said two parliaments and five years ago.
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
Is this being presented as news? A commitment to join the Euro when appropriate is a condition of membership. Two existing EU members - Denmark and the UK - secured opt outs (the UK's now moot) but new members must sign up.
But you have to do 2 years in the ERM first. So simple to do a Sweden and keep going, 'oops not met the criteria yet'.
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
If people are really keen to join the EU, is it really definite they would not pay that price?
I really don't understand the logic that says they should give up rule from London (which I think they would be right to do) and replace it with rule from Brussels.
Why does an independent Scotland need to tie itself to the EU? Join EFTA and the EEA and they get all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
Well, the EU wouldn’t declare war on Scotland’s behalf or decide which Unions we could leave or remain in or decide how we utilise our resources. There would be the tyranny of collective standards on vacuum cleaners of course; that would be a cross which we would just have to bear.
OR the EU could summon Holyrood to submit its budget to the Bundestag FIRST, before it goes before Scottish MSPs, as happened to the Irish. Or the EU Commission could simply depose your elected leader and inflict someone of their choosing, as happened to Italy and Greece. That kinda shit
And Italy is a LOT bigger and more important than little ol Scotland
And just to reiterate the point upthread, there would also be the requirement to join the Euro, in contradiction to the idea that Scotland could maintain a separate currency of its choosing.
All this has quite a lot of implications for the wording of any future referendum. "Should Scotland be an independent country" can't be answered with "Yes" if leaving the UK is predicated on joining the EU. "Should Scots continue to live in an independent country" would be a more accurate question, with a "Yes" vote meaning that Scotland would stay in the UK.
But it's also worth noting that the English national curriculum for GCSE requires pupils to understand that answers of "Yes" and "No" should be avoided in questionnaires (and by implication referenda) because "Yes" was a leading answer that biased results in its favour.
So a more rigorous and less ambiguous wording would just leave out any reference to "independence" and avoid the bias of Yes/No answers. Maybe something like "Should Scotland remain in or leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?", with answers of "Remain in the UK" and "Leave the UK". A question of that sort would be less likely to deliver Sturgeon the answer she craves, a point which seemed to elude David Cameron back in 2014, when the UK government rolled over like patsies and the SNP got the question they wanted.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
Parties can't just decide what they think is best, of course - parties are constrained either way by public opinion, and they don't try to lose elections by betraying their core voters. Voters in PR systems are not stupider or more forgetful. I think the following statement is true in the UK too - attitudes toward your policies and performance on election day matter far more than the details of what exactly the last party leader said two parliaments and five years ago.
Isnt the argument british voters are stupid hence our vote to leave...cant have it both ways
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
If people are really keen to join the EU, is it really definite they would not pay that price?
I really don't understand the logic that says they should give up rule from London (which I think they would be right to do) and replace it with rule from Brussels.
Why does an independent Scotland need to tie itself to the EU? Join EFTA and the EEA and they get all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
Well, the EU wouldn’t declare war on Scotland’s behalf or decide which Unions we could leave or remain in or decide how we utilise our resources. There would be the tyranny of collective standards on vacuum cleaners of course; that would be a cross which we would just have to bear.
OR the EU could summon Holyrood to submit its budget to the Bundestag FIRST, before it goes before Scottish MSPs, as happened to the Irish. Or the EU Commission could simply depose your elected leader and inflict someone of their choosing, as happened to Italy and Greece. That kinda shit
And Italy is a LOT bigger and more important than little ol Scotland
You say that as if a UK PM hadn't just been deposed by the bond markets.
No, she was deposed by the Conservative party, and their choice of replacement wasn't dictated externally.
Two reasons the manifesto matters a lot in the UK: first, the tenuous democratic mandate that a few general elections serve up, most obviously 2005, and the absence of a formal government agreement to validate the actions of a new leader mid-term. Second, the House of Lords conventions.
Mail and Express suspicious of Ten Thousand Men from Albania claiming asylum after coming across the Chanel illegally.
The Telegraph puts fun in Fungal asking New Disease X?
the Star tells us about Zombie Pigeons. Sad it is.
Murdochs Times who clearly hated Truss likes Rishi so much they have turned over their front page to Conservative HQ to make into an election leaflet
the 👁 has triple lock safe, defence spending cut and asks “does Rishi have a women problem?” (Where is this actually coming from, is it built from any actual fact?)
Wait, is this from Metro peak Rishi? 😁
Don’t tell them about Valley Fever. It’s spreading through the US on account of climate change
Ground zero is Arizona. Do we know anyone who has been there recently?
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
Of course, in a coalition parties will have to drop, or dilute, bits of their programs (unless all parties in a coalition had exactly the same manifestos which would be weird), but does that generally lead to governments governing further from the views of the median voter?
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
If people are really keen to join the EU, is it really definite they would not pay that price?
I really don't understand the logic that says they should give up rule from London (which I think they would be right to do) and replace it with rule from Brussels.
Why does an independent Scotland need to tie itself to the EU? Join EFTA and the EEA and they get all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
Well, the EU wouldn’t declare war on Scotland’s behalf or decide which Unions we could leave or remain in or decide how we utilise our resources. There would be the tyranny of collective standards on vacuum cleaners of course; that would be a cross which we would just have to bear.
OR the EU could summon Holyrood to submit its budget to the Bundestag FIRST, before it goes before Scottish MSPs, as happened to the Irish. Or the EU Commission could simply depose your elected leader and inflict someone of their choosing, as happened to Italy and Greece. That kinda shit
And Italy is a LOT bigger and more important than little ol Scotland
You say that as if a UK PM hadn't just been deposed by the bond markets.
No, she was deposed by the Conservative party, and their choice of replacement wasn't dictated externally.
Ok, but the paranoid argument that the EU dictated the choice of Monti or Draghi is a lie. To make any sense of the claim, we can look at the reality that it was the Italians finding a broadly acceptable candidate to maintain confidence from their creditors, just like Sunak was.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
Of course, in a coalition parties will have to drop, or dilute, bits of their programs (unless all parties in a coalition had exactly the same manifestos which would be weird), but does that generally lead to governments governing further from the views of the median voter?
Yes if it means they get my vote but govern in a way that drops everything I voted for yes keeps everything I despised. The only way pr can be fair is they go well here is our revised manifesto and we can withdraw our votes. I certainly wanted to in 2010 when I heard the manifesto. I didnt vote for it, didnt want it , despised it yet my vote was counted as part of their mandate. Fuck them
Kamski said: "If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter."
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Germany use a mixed system for electing the Bundestag? And a minimum that excludes small parties from representation on the propotional vote.
I understand what you are saying, given the German tendency to form "grand" coalitions in recent years, but grand coalitions are unusual elsewhere when nations are not at war. It would be possible, in principle, to measure how close the UK and German governments in recent years have been to their median voters, but that is not a trivial problem -- and no one has offered to pay me a large sum to hire a research team to do it.
(The US had a touch of a "grand" coalition in WW II. FDR named Republicans to head both the Navy and War departments. This was before there was a unified Defense Department, of course.)
Germany produced the fuckwit called merkel...enough said I dont think they can crow about their electoral system
Kamski said: "If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter."
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Germany use a mixed system for electing the Bundestag? And a minimum that excludes small parties from representation on the propotional vote.
I understand what you are saying, given the German tendency to form "grand" coalitions in recent years, but grand coalitions are unusual elsewhere when nations are not at war. It would be possible, in principle, to measure how close the UK and German governments in recent years have been to their median voters, but that is not a trivial problem -- and no one has offered to pay me a large sum to hire a research team to do it.
(The US had a touch of a "grand" coalition in WW II. FDR named Republicans to head both the Navy and War departments. This was before there was a unified Defense Department, of course.)
Germany produced the fuckwit called merkel...enough said I dont think they can crow about their electoral system
Designed by Brits TM
Yeah we designed it to fuck the germans probably, little did we know it would fuck us back. Though at least it did achieve its aims and fucked the germans good and proper
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
Of course, in a coalition parties will have to drop, or dilute, bits of their programs (unless all parties in a coalition had exactly the same manifestos which would be weird), but does that generally lead to governments governing further from the views of the median voter?
Yes if it means they get my vote but govern in a way that drops everything I voted for yes keeps everything I despised. The only way pr can be fair is they go well here is our revised manifesto and we can withdraw our votes. I certainly wanted to in 2010 when I heard the manifesto. I didnt vote for it, didnt want it , despised it yet my vote was counted as part of their mandate. Fuck them
So what - the Tories with a huge majority ditched tons of their commitments after Covid, Ukraine, etc etc. In the words of the Foreign Secretary, "There was no global pandemic in the 2019 manifesto. There was no invasion of Ukraine in the 2019 manifesto. We have got to respond to the world as we find it, not the one we wish it to be."
A gender identity clinic’ branded “Sturgeon’s Tavistock” has been offering patients irreversible sex-change treatments despite senior clinicians admitting that its methods are not backed by “robust evidence”, a leaked recording showed.
The Sandyford Clinic in Glasgow, home to Scotland’s only gender identity clinic for children, also authorised hormone treatment and referrals for surgical procedures for its patients after apparently rudimentary mental health assessments, according to unguarded comments by a senior clinician.
A consultant clinical psychologist at Sandyford openly admitted at an online NHS event in June that there were huge gaps in evidence around trans healthcare and claimed that work was ongoing to find “a robust evidence base for the treatment that we offer”.
Kamski said: "If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter."
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Germany use a mixed system for electing the Bundestag? And a minimum that excludes small parties from representation on the propotional vote.
I understand what you are saying, given the German tendency to form "grand" coalitions in recent years, but grand coalitions are unusual elsewhere when nations are not at war. It would be possible, in principle, to measure how close the UK and German governments in recent years have been to their median voters, but that is not a trivial problem -- and no one has offered to pay me a large sum to hire a research team to do it.
(The US had a touch of a "grand" coalition in WW II. FDR named Republicans to head both the Navy and War departments. This was before there was a unified Defense Department, of course.)
Germany produced the fuckwit called merkel...enough said I dont think they can crow about their electoral system
Designed by Brits TM
Yeah we designed it to fuck the germans probably, little did we know it would fuck us back. Though at least it did achieve its aims and fucked the germans good and proper
Mushy grand coalitions was an objective not a flaw… Germany has a troubled track record with authoritarian extremists…
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
Of course, in a coalition parties will have to drop, or dilute, bits of their programs (unless all parties in a coalition had exactly the same manifestos which would be weird), but does that generally lead to governments governing further from the views of the median voter?
Yes if it means they get my vote but govern in a way that drops everything I voted for yes keeps everything I despised. The only way pr can be fair is they go well here is our revised manifesto and we can withdraw our votes. I certainly wanted to in 2010 when I heard the manifesto. I didnt vote for it, didnt want it , despised it yet my vote was counted as part of their mandate. Fuck them
So what - the Tories with a huge majority ditched tons of their commitments after Covid, Ukraine, etc etc. In the words of the Foreign Secretary, "There was no global pandemic in the 2019 manifesto. There was no invasion of Ukraine in the 2019 manifesto. We have got to respond to the world as we find it, not the one we wish it to be."
Well duh....are you saying covid and the ukraine war were not unknown unkowns at the time?. The coalition in 2010 didnt have any excuse whatsoever. If random shit happens causing a change in manifesto I have some sympathy for that. Throwing stuff I wanted away just to get enough votes to pass a queens speech.....fuck off and die and dont count my vote as a mandate
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
Of course, in a coalition parties will have to drop, or dilute, bits of their programs (unless all parties in a coalition had exactly the same manifestos which would be weird), but does that generally lead to governments governing further from the views of the median voter?
Yes if it means they get my vote but govern in a way that drops everything I voted for yes keeps everything I despised. The only way pr can be fair is they go well here is our revised manifesto and we can withdraw our votes. I certainly wanted to in 2010 when I heard the manifesto. I didnt vote for it, didnt want it , despised it yet my vote was counted as part of their mandate. Fuck them
So what - the Tories with a huge majority ditched tons of their commitments after Covid, Ukraine, etc etc. In the words of the Foreign Secretary, "There was no global pandemic in the 2019 manifesto. There was no invasion of Ukraine in the 2019 manifesto. We have got to respond to the world as we find it, not the one we wish it to be."
Well duh....are you saying covid and the ukraine war were not unknown unkowns at the time?. The coalition in 2010 didnt have any excuse whatsoever. If random shit happens causing a change in manifesto I have some sympathy for that. Throwing stuff I wanted away just to get enough votes to pass a queens speech.....fuck off and die and dont count my vote as a mandate
It's not Deliveroo. If most people don't support your desires, you shouldn't expect to attain them in a democracy.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
Of course, in a coalition parties will have to drop, or dilute, bits of their programs (unless all parties in a coalition had exactly the same manifestos which would be weird), but does that generally lead to governments governing further from the views of the median voter?
Yes if it means they get my vote but govern in a way that drops everything I voted for yes keeps everything I despised. The only way pr can be fair is they go well here is our revised manifesto and we can withdraw our votes. I certainly wanted to in 2010 when I heard the manifesto. I didnt vote for it, didnt want it , despised it yet my vote was counted as part of their mandate. Fuck them
So what - the Tories with a huge majority ditched tons of their commitments after Covid, Ukraine, etc etc. In the words of the Foreign Secretary, "There was no global pandemic in the 2019 manifesto. There was no invasion of Ukraine in the 2019 manifesto. We have got to respond to the world as we find it, not the one we wish it to be."
Well duh....are you saying covid and the ukraine war were not unknown unkowns at the time?. The coalition in 2010 didnt have any excuse whatsoever. If random shit happens causing a change in manifesto I have some sympathy for that. Throwing stuff I wanted away just to get enough votes to pass a queens speech.....fuck off and die and dont count my vote as a mandate
Let people like me withdraw our vote after the coalition and manifesto is launched and I could live with pr. I suspect you wouldnt like that though because often your favourite parties no longer have enough votes to be the government
Kamski said: "If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter."
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Germany use a mixed system for electing the Bundestag? And a minimum that excludes small parties from representation on the propotional vote.
I understand what you are saying, given the German tendency to form "grand" coalitions in recent years, but grand coalitions are unusual elsewhere when nations are not at war. It would be possible, in principle, to measure how close the UK and German governments in recent years have been to their median voters, but that is not a trivial problem -- and no one has offered to pay me a large sum to hire a research team to do it.
(The US had a touch of a "grand" coalition in WW II. FDR named Republicans to head both the Navy and War departments. This was before there was a unified Defense Department, of course.)
Germany produced the fuckwit called merkel...enough said I dont think they can crow about their electoral system
Designed by Brits TM
Yeah we designed it to fuck the germans probably, little did we know it would fuck us back. Though at least it did achieve its aims and fucked the germans good and proper
Mushy grand coalitions was an objective not a flaw… Germany has a troubled track record with authoritarian extremists…
yes and that worked out so well as it gave you merkel
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
Of course, in a coalition parties will have to drop, or dilute, bits of their programs (unless all parties in a coalition had exactly the same manifestos which would be weird), but does that generally lead to governments governing further from the views of the median voter?
Yes if it means they get my vote but govern in a way that drops everything I voted for yes keeps everything I despised. The only way pr can be fair is they go well here is our revised manifesto and we can withdraw our votes. I certainly wanted to in 2010 when I heard the manifesto. I didnt vote for it, didnt want it , despised it yet my vote was counted as part of their mandate. Fuck them
So what - the Tories with a huge majority ditched tons of their commitments after Covid, Ukraine, etc etc. In the words of the Foreign Secretary, "There was no global pandemic in the 2019 manifesto. There was no invasion of Ukraine in the 2019 manifesto. We have got to respond to the world as we find it, not the one we wish it to be."
Well duh....are you saying covid and the ukraine war were not unknown unkowns at the time?. The coalition in 2010 didnt have any excuse whatsoever. If random shit happens causing a change in manifesto I have some sympathy for that. Throwing stuff I wanted away just to get enough votes to pass a queens speech.....fuck off and die and dont count my vote as a mandate
It's not Deliveroo. If most people don't support your desires, you shouldn't expect to attain them in a democracy.
When did I suggest support my desires, what I said was when two parties go into coalition and ditch everything I voted for I didnt want my vote any longer to stand for them. If enough go no I dont like that manifesto then tough titty for them
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
Of course, in a coalition parties will have to drop, or dilute, bits of their programs (unless all parties in a coalition had exactly the same manifestos which would be weird), but does that generally lead to governments governing further from the views of the median voter?
Yes if it means they get my vote but govern in a way that drops everything I voted for yes keeps everything I despised. The only way pr can be fair is they go well here is our revised manifesto and we can withdraw our votes. I certainly wanted to in 2010 when I heard the manifesto. I didnt vote for it, didnt want it , despised it yet my vote was counted as part of their mandate. Fuck them
So what - the Tories with a huge majority ditched tons of their commitments after Covid, Ukraine, etc etc. In the words of the Foreign Secretary, "There was no global pandemic in the 2019 manifesto. There was no invasion of Ukraine in the 2019 manifesto. We have got to respond to the world as we find it, not the one we wish it to be."
Well duh....are you saying covid and the ukraine war were not unknown unkowns at the time?. The coalition in 2010 didnt have any excuse whatsoever. If random shit happens causing a change in manifesto I have some sympathy for that. Throwing stuff I wanted away just to get enough votes to pass a queens speech.....fuck off and die and dont count my vote as a mandate
It's not Deliveroo. If most people don't support your desires, you shouldn't expect to attain them in a democracy.
When did I suggest support my desires, what I said was when two parties go into coalition and ditch everything I voted for I didnt want my vote any longer to stand for them. If enough go no I dont like that manifesto then tough titty for them
Clearly too many people were opposed to the things you wanted, which is a pity but again it's not a menu where everyone gets their preference, it's a set of opposed choices where often you get what you didn't want. Anyway imagine if that system were in place in the UK under FPTP - we would be seeing a general election every 18 months.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
Of course, in a coalition parties will have to drop, or dilute, bits of their programs (unless all parties in a coalition had exactly the same manifestos which would be weird), but does that generally lead to governments governing further from the views of the median voter?
Yes if it means they get my vote but govern in a way that drops everything I voted for yes keeps everything I despised. The only way pr can be fair is they go well here is our revised manifesto and we can withdraw our votes. I certainly wanted to in 2010 when I heard the manifesto. I didnt vote for it, didnt want it , despised it yet my vote was counted as part of their mandate. Fuck them
So what - the Tories with a huge majority ditched tons of their commitments after Covid, Ukraine, etc etc. In the words of the Foreign Secretary, "There was no global pandemic in the 2019 manifesto. There was no invasion of Ukraine in the 2019 manifesto. We have got to respond to the world as we find it, not the one we wish it to be."
Well duh....are you saying covid and the ukraine war were not unknown unkowns at the time?. The coalition in 2010 didnt have any excuse whatsoever. If random shit happens causing a change in manifesto I have some sympathy for that. Throwing stuff I wanted away just to get enough votes to pass a queens speech.....fuck off and die and dont count my vote as a mandate
It's not Deliveroo. If most people don't support your desires, you shouldn't expect to attain them in a democracy.
When did I suggest support my desires, what I said was when two parties go into coalition and ditch everything I voted for I didnt want my vote any longer to stand for them. If enough go no I dont like that manifesto then tough titty for them
Clearly too many people were opposed to the things you wanted, which is a pity but again it's not a menu where everyone gets their preference, it's a set of opposed choices where often you get what you didn't want. Anyway imagine if that system were in place in the UK under FPTP - we would be seeing a general election every 18 months.
I told you I would support pr, as long as when the manifesto is announced I can say no I dont like that and wouldnt have voted for it so I recast my vote. Why is that a problem for you?
Kamski said: "If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter."
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Germany use a mixed system for electing the Bundestag? And a minimum that excludes small parties from representation on the propotional vote.
I understand what you are saying, given the German tendency to form "grand" coalitions in recent years, but grand coalitions are unusual elsewhere when nations are not at war. It would be possible, in principle, to measure how close the UK and German governments in recent years have been to their median voters, but that is not a trivial problem -- and no one has offered to pay me a large sum to hire a research team to do it.
(The US had a touch of a "grand" coalition in WW II. FDR named Republicans to head both the Navy and War departments. This was before there was a unified Defense Department, of course.)
Yes there is a 5% (or win 3 constituencies, or be the Danish SSW who currently have one seat) threshold, but a threshold is common in PR systems. And 5% is a fairly standard threshold.
Yes it is mixed member, but the number of PR members increases if needed to keep the overall result proportional to the party vote.
I'm not aware of any studies asking this question, so I don't know, but I'm just a bit surprised that you think FPTP produces governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter than PR, as I have opposite impression, and I was wondering if you had examples in mind.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
Of course, in a coalition parties will have to drop, or dilute, bits of their programs (unless all parties in a coalition had exactly the same manifestos which would be weird), but does that generally lead to governments governing further from the views of the median voter?
Yes if it means they get my vote but govern in a way that drops everything I voted for yes keeps everything I despised. The only way pr can be fair is they go well here is our revised manifesto and we can withdraw our votes. I certainly wanted to in 2010 when I heard the manifesto. I didnt vote for it, didnt want it , despised it yet my vote was counted as part of their mandate. Fuck them
So what - the Tories with a huge majority ditched tons of their commitments after Covid, Ukraine, etc etc. In the words of the Foreign Secretary, "There was no global pandemic in the 2019 manifesto. There was no invasion of Ukraine in the 2019 manifesto. We have got to respond to the world as we find it, not the one we wish it to be."
Well duh....are you saying covid and the ukraine war were not unknown unkowns at the time?. The coalition in 2010 didnt have any excuse whatsoever. If random shit happens causing a change in manifesto I have some sympathy for that. Throwing stuff I wanted away just to get enough votes to pass a queens speech.....fuck off and die and dont count my vote as a mandate
It's not Deliveroo. If most people don't support your desires, you shouldn't expect to attain them in a democracy.
When did I suggest support my desires, what I said was when two parties go into coalition and ditch everything I voted for I didnt want my vote any longer to stand for them. If enough go no I dont like that manifesto then tough titty for them
Clearly too many people were opposed to the things you wanted, which is a pity but again it's not a menu where everyone gets their preference, it's a set of opposed choices where often you get what you didn't want. Anyway imagine if that system were in place in the UK under FPTP - we would be seeing a general election every 18 months.
I told you I would support pr, as long as when the manifesto is announced I can say no I dont like that and wouldnt have voted for it so I recast my vote. Why is that a problem for you?
See I think the issue you pr arseholes have is you want democracy(to be applauded) but you dont want enough democracy where people can say hang on I didnt vote for that. You want politicians to decide and lets face it they are all the naked mole rats of society
If Labour win a majority with FPTP no chance of them backing PR. PR of course ensures most of our governments are decided in back room deals after elections rather than on election night, even if it does increase representation for smaller parties
"Earlier this month, the Atlantic declared her “Trumpism’s leading lady,” then spent more than 3,500 words explaining why. The Washington Post elaborated a few days later. “[Lake] has emerged as a Republican phenom by amplifying Donald Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen,” read the subhead of its even longer profile. Last week, Axios went several steps further and reported that top Democratic strategists now believe Lake has the “potential to soar to a vice presidential spot or a post-Trump presidential candidacy.”
PB-ers will no doubt be grateful that I pointed out all of this: several weeks before the actual American media
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
The answer to that is to bring in a degree of PR under a semi-proportionate "majority bonus" system as practiced in Greece currently and in Italy from 2006 to 2013. That effectively forces parties with aspirations to govern to form coalitions and meet a requirement to agree a joint basic programme for government, all before people vote. This is because seats are only initially allocated proportionately after which parties in the coalition with most votes get a "majority bonus" of extra top up seats. The top up seats effectively guarantee a working majority or near working majority depending on the number of bonus seats.
What would almost certainly emerge in the UK is a broad coalition of the right, and a broad coalition of the left. The LDs would be forced to choose sides before the election, if they chose the left a minority of LD voters might defect to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would have to decide whether going into a coalition with Reform and UKIP delivered more bonus seats than it lost through putting off more centrist Conservative electors. The Corbynite far left would split from Labour regardless, but would take few voters with them and Starmer's Labour might regard that as even helpful as it it tried to put together a broad moderate coalition of the left with the remaining LDs and Greens. Constitutional wreckers would no doubt not be allowed anywhere near the left or right coalitions, so the SNP would be reduced from their currently utterly disproportionate 8% of UK seats under FPTP to something closer to 3%. I suspect that Plaid would want to join the left coalition and would be allowed in. I suspect that the NI parties would stay out of any coalition.
It seems to me more proportionate than what we have got now, more transparent in offering a clear pre-election choice which puts the voters in control, and very capable of delivering stable government. Basically it ticks all the boxes.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
The answer to that is to bring in a degree of PR under a semi-proportionate "majority bonus" system as practiced in Greece currently and in Italy from 2006 to 2013. That effectively forces parties with aspirations to govern to form coalitions and meet a requirement to agree a joint basic programme for government, all before people vote. This is because seats are only initially allocated proportionately after which parties in the coalition with most votes get a "majority bonus" of extra top up seats. The top up seats effectively guarantee a working majority or near working majority depending on the number of bonus seats.
What would almost certainly emerge in the UK is a broad coalition of the right, and a broad coalition of the left. The LDs would be forced to choose sides before the election, if they chose the left a minority of LD voters might defect to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would have to decide whether going into a coalition with Reform and UKIP delivered more bonus seats than it lost through putting off more centrist Conservative electors. The Corbynite far left would split from Labour regardless, but would take few voters with them and Starmer's Labour might regard that as a bonus as helpful as it it tried to put together a broad moderate coalition of the left with the LDs and Greens. Constitutional wreckers would no doubt not be allowed anywhere near the left or right coalitions, so the SNP would be reduced from their currently utterly disproportionate 8% of UK seats under FPTP to something closer to 3%. I suspect that Plaid would want to join the left coalition and would be allowed in. I suspect that the NI parties would stay out of any coalition.
It seems to me more proportionate than what we have got now, more transparent in offering a clear pre-election choice which puts the voters in control, and very capable of delivering stable government. Basically it ticks all the boxes.
The problem with bonus allotments is that it's a bunch of extra politicians that don't have any constituency link and are very difficult to kick out.
"Earlier this month, the Atlantic declared her “Trumpism’s leading lady,” then spent more than 3,500 words explaining why. The Washington Post elaborated a few days later. “[Lake] has emerged as a Republican phenom by amplifying Donald Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen,” read the subhead of its even longer profile. Last week, Axios went several steps further and reported that top Democratic strategists now believe Lake has the “potential to soar to a vice presidential spot or a post-Trump presidential candidacy.”
PB-ers will no doubt be grateful that I pointed out all of this: several weeks before the actual American media
In November 2021, Lake told a group of Republican retirees that she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19 infection. She stated that, as governor, she would work to have hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin produced in the state to "make it easier for us to get these lifesaving drugs."[33] Lake questioned the science behind COVID-19 vaccines[34] and said that she had not been vaccinated.[35]
Lab 51 (-5) Con 23 (+4) LD 9 (-1) SNP 5 (+1) PC 1 (=) Reform 6 (+1) Green 4 (=) Others 1 (=)
Change is from Oct 20/21
Labour will gladly settle for a 28% lead, with two years of mortgage hikes, benefit cuts to the working and non-working poor, tax rises and dollops of public spending cuts all to come.
Analysis by the Resolution Foundation think tank said that the fortnight delay of the fiscal statement would save the Treasury between £10 billion and £15 billion. Ministers had been facing an estimated black hole in the Treasury’s finances of around £35 billion.
You all heard it here first this afternoon! A £20bn gap is not a huge deal. I wouldn't be surprised if it was smaller still with every prices falling.
Market confidence, something that is usually pretty difficult to measure in money terms, has saved us ~£40bn in spending cuts and tax rises per year vs where we were when Kwasi attempted to crash the economy.
Very good news.
I imagine Sunak/Hunt will want to use the current dynamics to build in some fiscal wriggle room. Slightly overcooking the tax rises / spending cuts now, gives them an election fighting fund if inflation moderates, the gilt market / economy settles and the recession is mild and short.
That’s their best chance for re-election.
Basically, I don’t think Hunt will be changing very much, compared to when he started his first draft. The reduction in the cost of long term borrowing and lower inflation is great, but he’ll be banking the difference rather than cancelling tax rises / spending cuts.
They'll have to hope this weirdly warm and windy weather continues lol
Kamski said: "If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter."
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Germany use a mixed system for electing the Bundestag? And a minimum that excludes small parties from representation on the propotional vote.
I understand what you are saying, given the German tendency to form "grand" coalitions in recent years, but grand coalitions are unusual elsewhere when nations are not at war. It would be possible, in principle, to measure how close the UK and German governments in recent years have been to their median voters, but that is not a trivial problem -- and no one has offered to pay me a large sum to hire a research team to do it.
(The US had a touch of a "grand" coalition in WW II. FDR named Republicans to head both the Navy and War departments. This was before there was a unified Defense Department, of course.)
Germany produced the fuckwit called merkel...enough said I dont think they can crow about their electoral system
Designed by Brits TM
Yeah we designed it to fuck the germans probably, little did we know it would fuck us back. Though at least it did achieve its aims and fucked the germans good and proper
Mushy grand coalitions was an objective not a flaw… Germany has a troubled track record with authoritarian extremists…
yes and that worked out so well as it gave you merkel
The problem was the unification massively increased Germany’s political and economic weight and they didn’t have the institutional maturity to handle it
If Labour win a majority with FPTP no chance of them backing PR. PR of course ensures most of our governments are decided in back room deals after elections rather than on election night, even if it does increase representation for smaller parties
Meanwhile the bits of the manifesto nobody likes are also decided in back rooms, and most of the last 12 years of FPTP have been hung parliaments and there's a good chance of next time too.
And of course the manifesto thing is a silly fiction really. Elections are about government performance and the forward-looking offer, and manifesto pledges that conflict with either of these will get ditched, and not enough people will care to matter.
Lab 51 (-5) Con 23 (+4) LD 9 (-1) SNP 5 (+1) PC 1 (=) Reform 6 (+1) Green 4 (=) Others 1 (=)
Change is from Oct 20/21
Labour will gladly settle for a 28% lead, with two years of mortgage hikes, benefit cuts to the working and non-working poor, tax rises and dollops of public spending cuts all to come.
But expect a grammar school in every town. Education, Education, Education.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
The answer to that is to bring in a degree of PR under a semi-proportionate "majority bonus" system as practiced in Greece currently and in Italy from 2006 to 2013. That effectively forces parties with aspirations to govern to form coalitions and meet a requirement to agree a joint basic programme for government, all before people vote. This is because seats are only initially allocated proportionately after which parties in the coalition with most votes get a "majority bonus" of extra top up seats. The top up seats effectively guarantee a working majority or near working majority depending on the number of bonus seats.
What would almost certainly emerge in the UK is a broad coalition of the right, and a broad coalition of the left. The LDs would be forced to choose sides before the election, if they chose the left a minority of LD voters might defect to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would have to decide whether going into a coalition with Reform and UKIP delivered more bonus seats than it lost through putting off more centrist Conservative electors. The Corbynite far left would split from Labour regardless, but would take few voters with them and Starmer's Labour might regard that as a bonus as helpful as it it tried to put together a broad moderate coalition of the left with the LDs and Greens. Constitutional wreckers would no doubt not be allowed anywhere near the left or right coalitions, so the SNP would be reduced from their currently utterly disproportionate 8% of UK seats under FPTP to something closer to 3%. I suspect that Plaid would want to join the left coalition and would be allowed in. I suspect that the NI parties would stay out of any coalition.
It seems to me more proportionate than what we have got now, more transparent in offering a clear pre-election choice which puts the voters in control, and very capable of delivering stable government. Basically it ticks all the boxes.
The problem with bonus allotments is that it's a bunch of extra politicians that don't have any constituency link and are very difficult to kick out.
Hardly a show stopper. A degree of geography can be added in by allocating bonus seats via regions. And the same issue applies to any standard PR system with a list system added onto a constituency system, so extra regional seats are hardly unique to the majority bonus system eg. Germany.
"Earlier this month, the Atlantic declared her “Trumpism’s leading lady,” then spent more than 3,500 words explaining why. The Washington Post elaborated a few days later. “[Lake] has emerged as a Republican phenom by amplifying Donald Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen,” read the subhead of its even longer profile. Last week, Axios went several steps further and reported that top Democratic strategists now believe Lake has the “potential to soar to a vice presidential spot or a post-Trump presidential candidacy.”
PB-ers will no doubt be grateful that I pointed out all of this: several weeks before the actual American media
An absolute masterclass in how to inspire a crowd, AND look good on TV. She does not hesitate for a moment. Word perfect. She has a pure political talent - ie she could be espousing entirely opposite values and be just as good, but it is the way she does it that counts. She manages to be venomous even as she sounds reasonable, which is scary
She's important because this subtle yet rabble-rousing skill is rare in American/western politics, these days
I predict she will win Arizona. After that, who knows
Lab 51 (-5) Con 23 (+4) LD 9 (-1) SNP 5 (+1) PC 1 (=) Reform 6 (+1) Green 4 (=) Others 1 (=)
Change is from Oct 20/21
Labour will gladly settle for a 28% lead, with two years of mortgage hikes, benefit cuts to the working and non-working poor, tax rises and dollops of public spending cuts all to come.
Agreed but probably a few days too early to benchmark Sunak. Probably a lagging indicator, this survey.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
The answer to that is to bring in a degree of PR under a semi-proportionate "majority bonus" system as practiced in Greece currently and in Italy from 2006 to 2013. That effectively forces parties with aspirations to govern to form coalitions and meet a requirement to agree a joint basic programme for government, all before people vote. This is because seats are only initially allocated proportionately after which parties in the coalition with most votes get a "majority bonus" of extra top up seats. The top up seats effectively guarantee a working majority or near working majority depending on the number of bonus seats.
What would almost certainly emerge in the UK is a broad coalition of the right, and a broad coalition of the left. The LDs would be forced to choose sides before the election, if they chose the left a minority of LD voters might defect to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would have to decide whether going into a coalition with Reform and UKIP delivered more bonus seats than it lost through putting off more centrist Conservative electors. The Corbynite far left would split from Labour regardless, but would take few voters with them and Starmer's Labour might regard that as a bonus as helpful as it it tried to put together a broad moderate coalition of the left with the LDs and Greens. Constitutional wreckers would no doubt not be allowed anywhere near the left or right coalitions, so the SNP would be reduced from their currently utterly disproportionate 8% of UK seats under FPTP to something closer to 3%. I suspect that Plaid would want to join the left coalition and would be allowed in. I suspect that the NI parties would stay out of any coalition.
It seems to me more proportionate than what we have got now, more transparent in offering a clear pre-election choice which puts the voters in control, and very capable of delivering stable government. Basically it ticks all the boxes.
The problem with bonus allotments is that it's a bunch of extra politicians that don't have any constituency link and are very difficult to kick out.
Hardly a show stopper. A degree of geography can be added in by allocating bonus seats via regions. And the same issue applies to any standard PR system with a list system added onto a constituency system, so extra regional seats are hardly unique to the majority bonus system eg. Germany.
Party list PR is a horrific elitist system so that isn't a good excuse.
Kamski - It is common in US presidential elections for the two parties to converge, after the nominations. That's especially true in very close elections, as one would expect. This convergence is so common that George Wallace, among others, liked to claim that there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" between the two major parties. Spatial models suggest the parties will converge close to the median voter, as long as there are just two parties competing. That was particularly true, for example, in 1960 and 2000.
And I can give you many more examples from our state politics. For example, Joe O'Dea, curently running for Senate in Colorado, has what I would call a moderate position on abortion -- and has gotten endorsements from both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" leaders: https://www.joeodea.com/ (Democrats tried to defeat him by backing more extreme candidate in the Republican primary.)
(If you are interested in the subject, theoretically, you might want to start by looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Economic_Theory_of_Democracy by Anthony Downs. Though I should warn you that economists and political scientists have been arguing about his conclusions since 1957.)
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
The answer to that is to bring in a degree of PR under a semi-proportionate "majority bonus" system as practiced in Greece currently and in Italy from 2006 to 2013. That effectively forces parties with aspirations to govern to form coalitions and meet a requirement to agree a joint basic programme for government, all before people vote. This is because seats are only initially allocated proportionately after which parties in the coalition with most votes get a "majority bonus" of extra top up seats. The top up seats effectively guarantee a working majority or near working majority depending on the number of bonus seats.
What would almost certainly emerge in the UK is a broad coalition of the right, and a broad coalition of the left. The LDs would be forced to choose sides before the election, if they chose the left a minority of LD voters might defect to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would have to decide whether going into a coalition with Reform and UKIP delivered more bonus seats than it lost through putting off more centrist Conservative electors. The Corbynite far left would split from Labour regardless, but would take few voters with them and Starmer's Labour might regard that as a bonus as helpful as it it tried to put together a broad moderate coalition of the left with the LDs and Greens. Constitutional wreckers would no doubt not be allowed anywhere near the left or right coalitions, so the SNP would be reduced from their currently utterly disproportionate 8% of UK seats under FPTP to something closer to 3%. I suspect that Plaid would want to join the left coalition and would be allowed in. I suspect that the NI parties would stay out of any coalition.
It seems to me more proportionate than what we have got now, more transparent in offering a clear pre-election choice which puts the voters in control, and very capable of delivering stable government. Basically it ticks all the boxes.
The problem with bonus allotments is that it's a bunch of extra politicians that don't have any constituency link and are very difficult to kick out.
Hardly a show stopper. A degree of geography can be added in by allocating bonus seats via regions. And the same issue applies to any standard PR system with a list system added onto a constituency system, so extra regional seats are hardly unique to the majority bonus system eg. Germany.
Party list PR is a horrific elitist system so that isn't a good excuse.
Wait until you hear about the UK which uses party lists of one person.
There is no perfect voting system, and anyone who thinks there is is utterly delusional.
All have benefits, but all contain serious problems.
I love the fact that - in the UK - there is a direct link between a local representative and their constituents. But, against that, there are too many safe seats. And it's also perfectly possible our constituency FPTP system produces results that are highly disproportional. At the council level in particular, it has led to areas which are one party states, which has resulted in fairly low levels of competence in the administration department.
I also worry that the more sweeties the SNP can secure for Scotland, the more regionalist parties appear, whose goal is a local optima, not a system one. The next time there's a hung Parliament, and the SNP is kingmaker (which is highly likely to happen), then you can bet the Scots will secure some kind of special treatment... Which will be a message well absorbed in Wales, Northern Ireland, etc.
This doesn't mean we should change systems. I like the British one. But I think a little more acknowledgement that it is far from perfect would be no bad thing.
A defence of the concept of safe seats is that a seat is only safe because voters decide it is. A seat doesn't become safe automatically, as if the voters aren't involved, which is the impression you sometimes get from pundits/commentators. In a year like 1997 it's possible for large numbers of previously safe seats to become marginals or even change hands, such as Michael Portillo's Enfield Southgate which was regarded as one of the safest Conservative seats in London.
In November 2021, Lake told a group of Republican retirees that she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19 infection. She stated that, as governor, she would work to have hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin produced in the state to "make it easier for us to get these lifesaving drugs."[33] Lake questioned the science behind COVID-19 vaccines[34] and said that she had not been vaccinated.[35]
So, she's a lunatic.
My business is in Arizona, and am a massive fan of the outgoing Governor Doug Ducey: he's pragmatic, sensible, and business friendly.
Arizonans have been given two choices: Lake is a genuine nutjob who believes every conspiracy theory under the sun. While Hobbs is a charisma free zone who will almost certainly make Arizona a worse place to do business.
If I had a vote (which I don't), it would be for Hobbs, because she's simply less dangerous than Lake. But it's hardly a positive endorsement.
There is no perfect voting system, and anyone who thinks there is is utterly delusional.
All have benefits, but all contain serious problems.
I love the fact that - in the UK - there is a direct link between a local representative and their constituents. But, against that, there are too many safe seats. And it's also perfectly possible our constituency FPTP system produces results that are highly disproportional. At the council level in particular, it has led to areas which are one party states, which has resulted in fairly low levels of competence in the administration department.
I also worry that the more sweeties the SNP can secure for Scotland, the more regionalist parties appear, whose goal is a local optima, not a system one. The next time there's a hung Parliament, and the SNP is kingmaker (which is highly likely to happen), then you can bet the Scots will secure some kind of special treatment... Which will be a message well absorbed in Wales, Northern Ireland, etc.
This doesn't mean we should change systems. I like the British one. But I think a little more acknowledgement that it is far from perfect would be no bad thing.
There is no perfect voting system, and anyone who thinks there is is utterly delusional.
All have benefits, but all contain serious problems.
I love the fact that - in the UK - there is a direct link between a local representative and their constituents. But, against that, there are too many safe seats. And it's also perfectly possible our constituency FPTP system produces results that are highly disproportional....
"Perfectly possible" is an odd framing for something that is regularly demonstrated.
The confusion stems partially from the nature of Russian colonialism. Over the centuries, while European powers conquered overseas territories, Russia ran a land empire that absorbed its neighbors. While Europeans instilled the notion that their subjects were “different” from them, Russians conquered using another device: “sameness.”
“Russians chose ‘sameness’ as an instrument of domination. The message of Western colonialism was: ‘you are not able to be like us,’ while the message of Russian colonialism was ‘you are not allowed to be different from us,’” explained Ukrainian philosopher Volodymyr Yermolenko at the recent Tbilisi Storytelling Festival (ZEG) co-hosted by Coda Story, the newsroom that I run.
The idea of “sameness as an instrument of domination” also explains why most well-meaning Russians I meet seem weirdly unaware of their country being perceived as a colonial master....
A defence of the concept of safe seats is that a seat is only safe because voters decide it is. A seat doesn't become safe automatically, as if the voters aren't involved, which is the impression you sometimes get from pundits/commentators. In a year like 1997 it's possible for large numbers of previously safe seats to become marginals or even change hands, such as Michael Portillo's Enfield Southgate which was regarded as one of the safest Conservative seats in London.
A defence of the concept of safe seats is that a seat is only safe because voters decide it is. A seat doesn't become safe automatically, as if the voters aren't involved, which is the impression you sometimes get from pundits/commentators. In a year like 1997 it's possible for large numbers of previously safe seats to become marginals or even change hands, such as Michael Portillo's Enfield Southgate which was regarded as one of the safest Conservative seats in London.
The confusion stems partially from the nature of Russian colonialism. Over the centuries, while European powers conquered overseas territories, Russia ran a land empire that absorbed its neighbors. While Europeans instilled the notion that their subjects were “different” from them, Russians conquered using another device: “sameness.”
“Russians chose ‘sameness’ as an instrument of domination. The message of Western colonialism was: ‘you are not able to be like us,’ while the message of Russian colonialism was ‘you are not allowed to be different from us,’” explained Ukrainian philosopher Volodymyr Yermolenko at the recent Tbilisi Storytelling Festival (ZEG) co-hosted by Coda Story, the newsroom that I run.
The idea of “sameness as an instrument of domination” also explains why most well-meaning Russians I meet seem weirdly unaware of their country being perceived as a colonial master....
Linked essay, also very interesting.
ახალი ხორცი [Fresh Meat] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/akhali-khortsi-fresh-meat ...I was told a story about an old Georgian woman who spent most of her life in Russia. Even her close relatives did not realize she could speak perfect Georgian until she did, on her deathbed. When asked why she had never spoken it before, she replied, “I feared they would mock me.” When the war ends — and that is the only thing I can hope for now — my language will have to be reinvented anew to discover some humility....
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
Which is precisely what I said...I give you a vote then you decide what the manifesto is. If I dont like it tough, if I would never have voted for you if I knew what you would negotiate away tough. You count my vote as a mandate to do things I never wanted.
If the allegation about the nature of the documents is correct, then it was also a likely breach of the Official Secrets Act, and therefore a potential criminal offence.
Tory MP alleges Braverman responsible for ‘multiple breaches of ministerial code’ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/26/suella-braverman-return-after-security-breach-defended-by-james-cleverly ...“It was sent from a private email address to another member of parliament,” he told TalkTV’s Kate McCann. “She then sought to copy in that individual’s wife and accidentally sent it to a staffer in parliament. To me, that seems a really serious breach, especially when it was documents relating to cyber security, as I believe. That seems a really serious breach....
In November 2021, Lake told a group of Republican retirees that she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19 infection. She stated that, as governor, she would work to have hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin produced in the state to "make it easier for us to get these lifesaving drugs."[33] Lake questioned the science behind COVID-19 vaccines[34] and said that she had not been vaccinated.[35]
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
The answer to that is to bring in a degree of PR under a semi-proportionate "majority bonus" system as practiced in Greece currently and in Italy from 2006 to 2013. That effectively forces parties with aspirations to govern to form coalitions and meet a requirement to agree a joint basic programme for government, all before people vote. This is because seats are only initially allocated proportionately after which parties in the coalition with most votes get a "majority bonus" of extra top up seats. The top up seats effectively guarantee a working majority or near working majority depending on the number of bonus seats.
What would almost certainly emerge in the UK is a broad coalition of the right, and a broad coalition of the left. The LDs would be forced to choose sides before the election, if they chose the left a minority of LD voters might defect to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would have to decide whether going into a coalition with Reform and UKIP delivered more bonus seats than it lost through putting off more centrist Conservative electors. The Corbynite far left would split from Labour regardless, but would take few voters with them and Starmer's Labour might regard that as a bonus as helpful as it it tried to put together a broad moderate coalition of the left with the LDs and Greens. Constitutional wreckers would no doubt not be allowed anywhere near the left or right coalitions, so the SNP would be reduced from their currently utterly disproportionate 8% of UK seats under FPTP to something closer to 3%. I suspect that Plaid would want to join the left coalition and would be allowed in. I suspect that the NI parties would stay out of any coalition.
It seems to me more proportionate than what we have got now, more transparent in offering a clear pre-election choice which puts the voters in control, and very capable of delivering stable government. Basically it ticks all the boxes.
The problem with bonus allotments is that it's a bunch of extra politicians that don't have any constituency link and are very difficult to kick out.
Hardly a show stopper. A degree of geography can be added in by allocating bonus seats via regions. And the same issue applies to any standard PR system with a list system added onto a constituency system, so extra regional seats are hardly unique to the majority bonus system eg. Germany.
Party list PR is a horrific elitist system so that isn't a good excuse.
With FPTP the party drops its favourites into the 80% of seats that are safe seats for life. Both parties have done this locally to me in recent years.
If Labour win a majority with FPTP no chance of them backing PR. PR of course ensures most of our governments are decided in back room deals after elections rather than on election night, even if it does increase representation for smaller parties
One of the beauties of PR is that if a party goes into a coalition with something against its manifesto in some back room deal then voters can punish them at the next GE by voting for someone else. With FPTP that often means a wasted vote, but with PR the new party will be represented. Thus the voters have more power than in FPTP.
If the allegation about the nature of the documents is correct, then it was also a likely breach of the Official Secrets Act, and therefore a potential criminal offence.
Tory MP alleges Braverman responsible for ‘multiple breaches of ministerial code’ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/26/suella-braverman-return-after-security-breach-defended-by-james-cleverly ...“It was sent from a private email address to another member of parliament,” he told TalkTV’s Kate McCann. “She then sought to copy in that individual’s wife and accidentally sent it to a staffer in parliament. To me, that seems a really serious breach, especially when it was documents relating to cyber security, as I believe. That seems a really serious breach....
She deliberately forwarded the documents to her private email before forwarding them to her friend and advisor. That is deliberate, not accidental.
If the allegation about the nature of the documents is correct, then it was also a likely breach of the Official Secrets Act, and therefore a potential criminal offence.
Tory MP alleges Braverman responsible for ‘multiple breaches of ministerial code’ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/26/suella-braverman-return-after-security-breach-defended-by-james-cleverly ...“It was sent from a private email address to another member of parliament,” he told TalkTV’s Kate McCann. “She then sought to copy in that individual’s wife and accidentally sent it to a staffer in parliament. To me, that seems a really serious breach, especially when it was documents relating to cyber security, as I believe. That seems a really serious breach....
She deliberately forwarded the documents to her private email before forwarding them to her friend and advisor. That is deliberate, not accidental.
And behind the clear breaches of standards, also revealed is someone so out of their depth and lacking in ability that they are relying heavily upon a friend on the backbenches to tell her what to be doing, sending him ministerial business so that he can advise her on how to do the job. Making it worse is that the backbencher concerned is hardly known among colleagues for his ability or intellect.
If the allegation about the nature of the documents is correct, then it was also a likely breach of the Official Secrets Act, and therefore a potential criminal offence.
Tory MP alleges Braverman responsible for ‘multiple breaches of ministerial code’ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/26/suella-braverman-return-after-security-breach-defended-by-james-cleverly ...“It was sent from a private email address to another member of parliament,” he told TalkTV’s Kate McCann. “She then sought to copy in that individual’s wife and accidentally sent it to a staffer in parliament. To me, that seems a really serious breach, especially when it was documents relating to cyber security, as I believe. That seems a really serious breach....
She deliberately forwarded the documents to her private email before forwarding them to her friend and advisor. That is deliberate, not accidental.
Indeed. I’m interested in the allegation about the papers relating to security, in that context. If true, that would put it under the Official Secrets Act, and a deliberate breach would be without question a resigning matter. The PM can’t choose to ignore a criminal offence when appointing a Home Secretary.
If the allegation about the nature of the documents is correct, then it was also a likely breach of the Official Secrets Act, and therefore a potential criminal offence.
Tory MP alleges Braverman responsible for ‘multiple breaches of ministerial code’ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/26/suella-braverman-return-after-security-breach-defended-by-james-cleverly ...“It was sent from a private email address to another member of parliament,” he told TalkTV’s Kate McCann. “She then sought to copy in that individual’s wife and accidentally sent it to a staffer in parliament. To me, that seems a really serious breach, especially when it was documents relating to cyber security, as I believe. That seems a really serious breach....
She deliberately forwarded the documents to her private email before forwarding them to her friend and advisor. That is deliberate, not accidental.
Indeed. I’m interested in the allegation about the papers relating to security, in that context. If true, that would put it under the Official Secrets Act, and a deliberate breach would be without question a resigning matter. The PM can’t choose to ignore a criminal offence when appointing a Home Secretary.
I thought Ministers of the Crown could remove documents from tthe auspicies of the official secrets act?
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
Don't think this is the killer fact people make it out to be. An independent Scotland won't continue to use sterling, so the choices are invented Scottish currency or an existing Euro.
I think independence will be very costly but the currency in of itself is not that huge an issue.
Current plan: 1) Continue to use GBP until 2) “Time is right” to set up own currency 3) Sturgeon says she doesn’t think € right for Scotland - EU says it must be.
Don't think Sturgeon is being honest in that case
Sturgeon not being honest? I don’t recall anyone ever suggesting that…
Good to see @RishiSunak & @vonderleyen speak so quickly. Also the new PM emphasising his preference for a negotiated solution over NI Protocol. Readout from @10DowningStreet below
If the allegation about the nature of the documents is correct, then it was also a likely breach of the Official Secrets Act, and therefore a potential criminal offence.
Tory MP alleges Braverman responsible for ‘multiple breaches of ministerial code’ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/26/suella-braverman-return-after-security-breach-defended-by-james-cleverly ...“It was sent from a private email address to another member of parliament,” he told TalkTV’s Kate McCann. “She then sought to copy in that individual’s wife and accidentally sent it to a staffer in parliament. To me, that seems a really serious breach, especially when it was documents relating to cyber security, as I believe. That seems a really serious breach....
She deliberately forwarded the documents to her private email before forwarding them to her friend and advisor. That is deliberate, not accidental.
Indeed. I’m interested in the allegation about the papers relating to security, in that context. If true, that would put it under the Official Secrets Act, and a deliberate breach would be without question a resigning matter. The PM can’t choose to ignore a criminal offence when appointing a Home Secretary.
I think Boris has shown that a PM can ignore such things for a very long time. The more interesting thing from a practical and betting viewpoint is the fact that Berry is openly creating mischief (rightly or wrongly) in week 1. Team Truss are not going to disappear quietly in the background, and this administration can't make it to 2024 without an election or a lot of very good luck.
The German electoral system has both constituency MPs representing their local area and PR. I agree that the down side is that because of the party list, a Portillo moment is almost impossible under this system though. The other problem is that with a growing number of parties, the number of list MPs needed to balance the PR part is bloating the Bundestag with MPs.
The German electoral system has both constituency MPs representing their local area and PR. I agree that the down side is that because of the party list, a Portillo moment is almost impossible under this system though. The other problem is that with a growing number of parties, the number of list MPs needed to balance the PR part is bloating the Bundestag with MPs.
You could have a rule that on the party lists, if the party declines in vote share and gets less seats from the list, then there is a first in, first out ordering principle. So the politicians that have been in power the longest get deselected from parties that become less popular.
10,000 households a month pushed onto prepayment meters at the moment. Only going to grow, and rapidly as the winter hits and the price rises and other inflation start to bite.
Typical disgrace that the capped rate for those on prepayment meters is actually higher than for the rest of us. What was that about government being committed to protecting the poorest......
The German electoral system has both constituency MPs representing their local area and PR. I agree that the down side is that because of the party list, a Portillo moment is almost impossible under this system though. The other problem is that with a growing number of parties, the number of list MPs needed to balance the PR part is bloating the Bundestag with MPs.
I loathe party lists.
Indeed, I loathe things that move power from voters to party bosses. (And, of course, FPTP has problems there too.)
And I really don't know what the perfect system is.
Actually, that's not true. I know there is no perfect system.
A straight two-party FPTP system means that it is very difficult for alternative voices to break through. It means it's perfectly possible for - for example - opposition to the UK getting further entangled with the EU to be essentially unrepresented.
And, of course, I have a choice of only one person from each party at each election.
But a straight proportional party list system is equally repellant. I hate closed lists. And I'm skeptical of any system that sees the same small party returned to office - one way or another - each electoral cycle. (Although, I grant you, FPTP may start doing that too in the UK.)
@isam had a very sensible suggestion. 600 regular MPs plus 50 elected based national party votes. It would mean that a UKIP or Greens on 6% would get 3 MPs. It would make majority government barely less likely, but it would also mean that geographically dispersed parties would still get some representation.
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
If people are really keen to join the EU, is it really definite they would not pay that price?
I really don't understand the logic that says they should give up rule from London (which I think they would be right to do) and replace it with rule from Brussels.
Why does an independent Scotland need to tie itself to the EU? Join EFTA and the EEA and they get all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
Well, the EU wouldn’t declare war on Scotland’s behalf or decide which Unions we could leave or remain in or decide how we utilise our resources. There would be the tyranny of collective standards on vacuum cleaners of course; that would be a cross which we would just have to bear.
OR the EU could summon Holyrood to submit its budget to the Bundestag FIRST, before it goes before Scottish MSPs, as happened to the Irish. Or the EU Commission could simply depose your elected leader and inflict someone of their choosing, as happened to Italy and Greece. That kinda shit
And Italy is a LOT bigger and more important than little ol Scotland
And just to reiterate the point upthread, there would also be the requirement to join the Euro, in contradiction to the idea that Scotland could maintain a separate currency of its choosing.
All this has quite a lot of implications for the wording of any future referendum. "Should Scotland be an independent country" can't be answered with "Yes" if leaving the UK is predicated on joining the EU. "Should Scots continue to live in an independent country" would be a more accurate question, with a "Yes" vote meaning that Scotland would stay in the UK.
But it's also worth noting that the English national curriculum for GCSE requires pupils to understand that answers of "Yes" and "No" should be avoided in questionnaires (and by implication referenda) because "Yes" was a leading answer that biased results in its favour.
So a more rigorous and less ambiguous wording would just leave out any reference to "independence" and avoid the bias of Yes/No answers. Maybe something like "Should Scotland remain in or leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?", with answers of "Remain in the UK" and "Leave the UK". A question of that sort would be less likely to deliver Sturgeon the answer she craves, a point which seemed to elude David Cameron back in 2014, when the UK government rolled over like patsies and the SNP got the question they wanted.
It's not really about independence.
It's about Scotland choosing a different governance model that allows them to think they can stiff England.
It should be remembered that applying FPTP to PCC and Mayoral Elections was a specific pledge in the 2019 Conservative Manifesto therefore TSE's point is not valid. Moreover, the Supplementary Vote was not popular with election officials in my experience as there was a failure rate of 25%-33% on redistributions.
Comments
Brexit failed the moose test.
The only poll to show such a huge split between the Governor and Senate races and the only one to show anything like that lead for Lake .
Even accounting for Hobbs stupid decision not to debate and call out Lake as an election denier that split looks suspect .
The poll could be seen as actually good news for Kelly because it looks pretty evident that this poll had a stronger than normal GOP lean even more than normal as it already has this bias .
All this has quite a lot of implications for the wording of any future referendum. "Should Scotland be an independent country" can't be answered with "Yes" if leaving the UK is predicated on joining the EU. "Should Scots continue to live in an independent country" would be a more accurate question, with a "Yes" vote meaning that Scotland would stay in the UK.
But it's also worth noting that the English national curriculum for GCSE requires pupils to understand that answers of "Yes" and "No" should be avoided in questionnaires (and by implication referenda) because "Yes" was a leading answer that biased results in its favour.
So a more rigorous and less ambiguous wording would just leave out any reference to "independence" and avoid the bias of Yes/No answers. Maybe something like "Should Scotland remain in or leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?", with answers of "Remain in the UK" and "Leave the UK". A question of that sort would be less likely to deliver Sturgeon the answer she craves, a point which seemed to elude David Cameron back in 2014, when the UK government rolled over like patsies and the SNP got the question they wanted.
Ground zero is Arizona. Do we know anyone who has been there recently?
Yes it is mixed member, but the number of PR members increases if needed to keep the overall result proportional to the party vote.
I'm not aware of any studies asking this question, so I don't know, but I'm just a bit surprised that you think FPTP produces governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter than PR, as I have opposite impression, and I was wondering if you had examples in mind.
PB-ers will no doubt be grateful that I pointed out all of this: several weeks before the actual American media
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/is-arizonas-kari-lake-the-most-dangerous-politician-in-america-090045758.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACjHwDtotpBllBF4PppcCLblReocNJfwiwGeS_wQ1qkmA13-T08lOaBDzksNUEu2LOtUoQKg0US35PZRrnYU9NyKER4y1qzSwJed7zQkwmvoJhp-nxd6MEK5UIA5jWNk0pD0559hOFKE7DHKpY26Ayxz_dJ0CCgOz7wQDzi-ptvE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_bonus_system
What would almost certainly emerge in the UK is a broad coalition of the right, and a broad coalition of the left. The LDs would be forced to choose sides before the election, if they chose the left a minority of LD voters might defect to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would have to decide whether going into a coalition with Reform and UKIP delivered more bonus seats than it lost through putting off more centrist Conservative electors. The Corbynite far left would split from Labour regardless, but would take few voters with them and Starmer's Labour might regard that as even helpful as it it tried to put together a broad moderate coalition of the left with the remaining LDs and Greens. Constitutional wreckers would no doubt not be allowed anywhere near the left or right coalitions, so the SNP would be reduced from their currently utterly disproportionate 8% of UK seats under FPTP to something closer to 3%. I suspect that Plaid would want to join the left coalition and would be allowed in. I suspect that the NI parties would stay out of any coalition.
It seems to me more proportionate than what we have got now, more transparent in offering a clear pre-election choice which puts the voters in control, and very capable of delivering stable government. Basically it ticks all the boxes.
Lab 51 (-5)
Con 23 (+4)
LD 9 (-1)
SNP 5 (+1)
PC 1 (=)
Reform 6 (+1)
Green 4 (=)
Others 1 (=)
Change is from Oct 20/21
So, she's a lunatic.
BEST PM:
Starmer 34
Sunak 30
SUNAK TRUSTED TO MAKE RIGHT DECISIONS ON:
Economy - Yes 43, No 46
NHS - Yes 20, No 66
Watch this
https://youtu.be/HiCXbL9TaCY
An absolute masterclass in how to inspire a crowd, AND look good on TV. She does not hesitate for a moment. Word perfect. She has a pure political talent - ie she could be espousing entirely opposite values and be just as good, but it is the way she does it that counts. She manages to be venomous even as she sounds reasonable, which is scary
She's important because this subtle yet rabble-rousing skill is rare in American/western politics, these days
I predict she will win Arizona. After that, who knows
Another not happening event.
(P.S. I quite like PR, STV sounds a decent idea to me, but it’s not happening)
And I can give you many more examples from our state politics. For example, Joe O'Dea, curently running for Senate in Colorado, has what I would call a moderate position on abortion -- and has gotten endorsements from both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" leaders: https://www.joeodea.com/ (Democrats tried to defeat him by backing more extreme candidate in the Republican primary.)
(If you are interested in the subject, theoretically, you might want to start by looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Economic_Theory_of_Democracy by Anthony Downs. Though I should warn you that economists and political scientists have been arguing about his conclusions since 1957.)
All have benefits, but all contain serious problems.
I love the fact that - in the UK - there is a direct link between a local representative and their constituents. But, against that, there are too many safe seats. And it's also perfectly possible our constituency FPTP system produces results that are highly disproportional. At the council level in particular, it has led to areas which are one party states, which has resulted in fairly low levels of competence in the administration department.
I also worry that the more sweeties the SNP can secure for Scotland, the more regionalist parties appear, whose goal is a local optima, not a system one. The next time there's a hung Parliament, and the SNP is kingmaker (which is highly likely to happen), then you can bet the Scots will secure some kind of special treatment... Which will be a message well absorbed in Wales, Northern Ireland, etc.
This doesn't mean we should change systems. I like the British one. But I think a little more acknowledgement that it is far from perfect would be no bad thing.
Arizonans have been given two choices: Lake is a genuine nutjob who believes every conspiracy theory under the sun. While Hobbs is a charisma free zone who will almost certainly make Arizona a worse place to do business.
If I had a vote (which I don't), it would be for Hobbs, because she's simply less dangerous than Lake. But it's hardly a positive endorsement.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/26/opinions/russia-georgia-colonialism-anxieties-antelava/index.html
...“They are victims,” a British journalist friend covering the Russian exodus, argued at a recent dinner party in Tbilisi. “They are, but they are also the perpetrators,” said the host.
The confusion stems partially from the nature of Russian colonialism. Over the centuries, while European powers conquered overseas territories, Russia ran a land empire that absorbed its neighbors. While Europeans instilled the notion that their subjects were “different” from them, Russians conquered using another device: “sameness.”
“Russians chose ‘sameness’ as an instrument of domination. The message of Western colonialism was: ‘you are not able to be like us,’ while the message of Russian colonialism was ‘you are not allowed to be different from us,’” explained Ukrainian philosopher Volodymyr Yermolenko at the recent Tbilisi Storytelling Festival (ZEG) co-hosted by Coda Story, the newsroom that I run.
The idea of “sameness as an instrument of domination” also explains why most well-meaning Russians I meet seem weirdly unaware of their country being perceived as a colonial master....
Sunak has a decent chance of proving you right, but I wouldn't rate it as almost certain.
ახალი ხორცი [Fresh Meat]
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/akhali-khortsi-fresh-meat
...I was told a story about an old Georgian woman who spent most of her life in Russia. Even her close relatives did not realize she could speak perfect Georgian until she did, on her deathbed. When asked why she had never spoken it before, she replied, “I feared they would mock me.” When the war ends — and that is the only thing I can hope for now — my language will have to be reinvented anew to discover some humility....
Tory MP alleges Braverman responsible for ‘multiple breaches of ministerial code’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/26/suella-braverman-return-after-security-breach-defended-by-james-cleverly
...“It was sent from a private email address to another member of parliament,” he told TalkTV’s Kate McCann. “She then sought to copy in that individual’s wife and accidentally sent it to a staffer in parliament. To me, that seems a really serious breach, especially when it was documents relating to cyber security, as I believe. That seems a really serious breach....
I’m interested in the allegation about the papers relating to security, in that context.
If true, that would put it under the Official Secrets Act, and a deliberate breach would be without question a resigning matter. The PM can’t choose to ignore a criminal offence when appointing a Home Secretary.
could be wrong
I agree that the down side is that because of the party list, a Portillo moment is almost impossible under this system though. The other problem is that with a growing number of parties, the number of list MPs needed to balance the PR part is bloating the Bundestag with MPs.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/26/ukraines-football-hooligans-take-aggression-new-rival-russian/
Typical disgrace that the capped rate for those on prepayment meters is actually higher than for the rest of us. What was that about government being committed to protecting the poorest......
Indeed, I loathe things that move power from voters to party bosses. (And, of course, FPTP has problems there too.)
And I really don't know what the perfect system is.
Actually, that's not true. I know there is no perfect system.
A straight two-party FPTP system means that it is very difficult for alternative voices to break through. It means it's perfectly possible for - for example - opposition to the UK getting further entangled with the EU to be essentially unrepresented.
And, of course, I have a choice of only one person from each party at each election.
But a straight proportional party list system is equally repellant. I hate closed lists. And I'm skeptical of any system that sees the same small party returned to office - one way or another - each electoral cycle. (Although, I grant you, FPTP may start doing that too in the UK.)
@isam had a very sensible suggestion. 600 regular MPs plus 50 elected based national party votes. It would mean that a UKIP or Greens on 6% would get 3 MPs. It would make majority government barely less likely, but it would also mean that geographically dispersed parties would still get some representation.
NEW THREAD
It's about Scotland choosing a different governance model that allows them to think they can stiff England.