My first was 1966. Living abroad, I volunteered with the Walworth Road organisers, and got sent to Hornsey, where I met the friendly but very focused Jeremy Corbyn as agent, and came back at each election to help again. A marginal held by Tory Hugh Rossi who we never quite unseated, it was always hard-fought - my idea of perfect romance was a sexy-looking couple precariously entwined on a shaky-looking balcony as the battle bus drove past, cheering us on with gusto before returning to their cuddle.
It was rich in Cypriot politics, too, and it was commonplace to be asked the candidate's views on Greek-Turkish rivalries (and wise to check the name of the voter before knocking, to give a suitably diplomatic response). Voters of Greek descent were better-rganised, and although we tried to get backing from both communities, I remember a Greek-English voters saying angrily, "Where are the Turkish comrades?"
I was deputed, age 16, to go and knock up a list of voters late on polling day. Most were simply away, and one couple rewarded me by jumping up and literally running down the road to vote, but the last one answered angrily, "You're the 4th one to remind me, but I voted first thing, your teller must have missed me. The next caller is going to get my fist down his throat." I reported back to the insanely glamorous ward organiser (OK, I was 16 and you know what it's like), who said furiously, "He's a fucking liar! Go back and ask him again!" I wanted to impress her, but ...
I've never encountered a teller at a polling station (except at a council by-election I suppose technically - the two candidates were there), not an important enough area I guess. I imagine you get some pretty tart reactions from some people.
Does all that still go on? I seem to recall the Conservatives called it the NCR system (No Carbon Required) for the tear-off slips used in the polling day campaign rooms while Labour called it the Mikardo system after the east end MP who pioneered it.
Well, at least he has a sense of humour about it. @timfarron 31 years ago today, Theresa and I shared both the same hairdo and the experience of defeat…
@yremogtnomnagol I guess you just love experiencing defeat what with being a Blackburn fan as well as a Lib Dem 😂😂👍
@timfarron I have built much character over the years…
First bloody wasp of the year and it was a whopper. Easy to forget the downside of sunny weather.
Probably a queen, looking for a potential nest.
In our bird box a pair of blue tits have been getting on at a cracking rate with nest building over the last few days. Quite strange how every every so often they hammer their bills against the woodwork! You'd think they'd get a headache!
My first was 1966. Living abroad, I volunteered with the Walworth Road organisers, and got sent to Hornsey, where I met the friendly but very focused Jeremy Corbyn as agent, and came back at each election to help again. A marginal held by Tory Hugh Rossi who we never quite unseated, it was always hard-fought - my idea of perfect romance was a sexy-looking couple precariously entwined on a shaky-looking balcony as the battle bus drove past, cheering us on with gusto before returning to their cuddle.
It was rich in Cypriot politics, too, and it was commonplace to be asked the candidate's views on Greek-Turkish rivalries (and wise to check the name of the voter before knocking, to give a suitably diplomatic response). Voters of Greek descent were better-rganised, and although we tried to get backing from both communities, I remember a Greek-English voters saying angrily, "Where are the Turkish comrades?"
I was deputed, age 16, to go and knock up a list of voters late on polling day. Most were simply away, and one couple rewarded me by jumping up and literally running down the road to vote, but the last one answered angrily, "You're the 4th one to remind me, but I voted first thing, your teller must have missed me. The next caller is going to get my fist down his throat." I reported back to the insanely glamorous ward organiser (OK, I was 16 and you know what it's like), who said furiously, "He's a fucking liar! Go back and ask him again!" I wanted to impress her, but ...
I've never encountered a teller at a polling station (except at a council by-election I suppose technically - the two candidates were there), not an important enough area I guess. I imagine you get some pretty tart reactions from some people.
Does all that still go on? I seem to recall the Conservatives called it the NCR system (No Carbon Required) for the tear-off slips used in the polling day campaign rooms while Labour called it the Mikardo system after the east end MP who pioneered it.
I think it is one of those things that activists tell themselves makes a huge difference so they can feel very impactful. The number of cases where it actually swings things I am skeptical about, given it would require fine margins and we don't have all that many constituencies that tight.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
Quite right. We’ll just get our chips from thin air…..
Macron could not be clearer - and the even clearer parts were removed by Politico on the request of the Élysée. In his view, Taiwan is not Europe‘s problem, and Europe should not become „vassals“ of the United States. This brutally undermines his credibility as leader in Europe
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
I remember the results coming in on the Friday morning in 1970. The nearby Belper result came in and there was some bloke blubbing because he had lost. Turns out it was George Brown, Labour's deputy leader.
First bloody wasp of the year and it was a whopper. Easy to forget the downside of sunny weather.
Wasp - or hornet?
Ultra whoppers are likely a queen hornet.
Definitely a wasp and OKC is prob correct it’s a queen. Had my fill of hornets last year - especially Asian hornets and hoped that moving from the country to coast would reduce my exposure to them - how wrong can I bee.
Quite right. We’ll just get our chips from thin air…..
Macron could not be clearer - and the even clearer parts were removed by Politico on the request of the Élysée. In his view, Taiwan is not Europe‘s problem, and Europe should not become „vassals“ of the United States. This brutally undermines his credibility as leader in Europe
There’s long been an isolationist strain in French politics - just as with the US. In neither case is it very sensible,
The French have always had a massive chip on their shoulder over the English-speaking powers. In reality, the democratic world needs to stick together to defend each other.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
I think there is a case to be made that more direct signals of approval for a specific policy of significance is potentially a good thing, notwithstanding the experience of Brexit.. Someone might support the policy itself but still think a certain procedure should be followed, though of course you then run into the problem of deciding when such a process is triggered.
My only major objection is if someone were to claim that is a requirement to make a change, rather than a choice on how to make it. And people do make that claim.
Claiming that a change (in process, or policy, or whatever) is not really a change, but how things are done, can be quite successful I imagine. Then people who are not seeking change look like they are quibbling over nothing.
Quite right. We’ll just get our chips from thin air…..
Macron could not be clearer - and the even clearer parts were removed by Politico on the request of the Élysée. In his view, Taiwan is not Europe‘s problem, and Europe should not become „vassals“ of the United States. This brutally undermines his credibility as leader in Europe
There’s long been an isolationist strain in French politics - just as with the US. In neither case is it very sensible,
The French have always had a massive chip on their shoulder over the English-speaking powers. In reality, the democratic world needs to stick together to defend each other.
Not really. Russia and Turkey lost their admittedly fragile democracies; Mexico is on the same path. Taiwan's a more free and fair democracy than all those were, but so is Israel, and there's no guarantees about Israel's democracy right now. In none of these cases would a more authoritarian system threaten UK democracy.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
The usual left wing partisans here are just trying to make excuses for their elitist way of thinking, of not getting democratic consent for fundamentally changing the country. Now that they don't have the EU layer for their cohort to force their wishes on the people, they want to reinforce government by elite domestically.
In reality, a new democratic norm has been established that major constitutional changes - new EU treaties, EU membership, Scottish independence, switching to AV - requires the Great British public to agree. Elitists trying to take this power back from the people, especially to give more power to the parties, will pay the price. Just as when they did it over the Lisbon Treaty. They should face all out war and resistance.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
Labour strategists are cock-a-hoop with how the adverts have landed. The first advert tweeted has received 20.8 million views, making it arguably the most successful Labour attack in recent memory. A party insider said: “Nice doesn’t win elections. They have got used to Labour shirking the dirty stuff. That’s changed.”...
...The party is not going to stop there. According to senior Labour sources, one of the next attack ads will suggest the PM has “effectively decriminalised rape”.
It will claim that under the Tories “only 1.6 per cent of rapists have been charged”. A source said: “We aren’t talking to Twitter. We are talking to the vast majority of the country who want to see child rapists locked up and know the Tories have destroyed the criminal justice system. [Sunak] is leading the government that is responsible and he has got the man [Jeremy Hunt] who butchered the NHS as his chancellor.”
It is understood Labour drew up the messages some time ago and have been waiting for the right time to deploy them....
...It has even been claimed that a group of former Tory election staffers have turned against their own party and approached Labour to help formulate their election strategy.
This is all ultimately for nought if the Labour Party won't advance a viable alternative. As with all the rest of the myriad problems with public services, they need to formulate a plan to fix them and find from somewhere the colossal sums of money needed to pay for the plan.
It's where the money's meant to come from that's likely to prove their undoing, in the end. They can probably get away with a certain amount of borrowing to invest for infrastructure projects, albeit that they're going to have to be extremely careful not to repeat the mistakes of PFI and end up saddling public sector organisations with even more debt servicing obligations. However, ultimately they need to service the ongoing costs of, for example, paying more for care home places so the staff can be paid enough not to sod off to Aldi, and putting tens of thousands of extra police on the streets, by raising an awful lot of tax.
Low and middle income earners have already been bled white and there's no indication that Labour are willing to milk the obvious source of extra revenue which is asset wealth - residential and commercial property, stocks and shares. So where's the money to pay for all this stuff?
We can’t afford to bring alleged rapists to trial is really not going to cut the mustard. I am pretty sure people will take additional taxes on wealth to sort the criminal justice system out.
The fundamental issue is that the PFI spending from the Blair/Brown government is now coming due. All they did was spending today’s money yesterday.
Today we have to cover the bills for both periods.
There really isn’t much money left.
FPT - that isn’t how PFI is supposed to work. At the end of the term the client is supposed to be delivered a hospital/school/etc in good working order.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
Quite right. We’ll just get our chips from thin air…..
Macron could not be clearer - and the even clearer parts were removed by Politico on the request of the Élysée. In his view, Taiwan is not Europe‘s problem, and Europe should not become „vassals“ of the United States. This brutally undermines his credibility as leader in Europe
There’s long been an isolationist strain in French politics - just as with the US. In neither case is it very sensible,
The French have always had a massive chip on their shoulder over the English-speaking powers. In reality, the democratic world needs to stick together to defend each other.
Not really. Russia and Turkey lost their admittedly fragile democracies; Mexico is on the same path. Taiwan's a more free and fair democracy than all those were, but so is Israel, and there's no guarantees about Israel's democracy right now. In none of these cases would a more authoritarian system threaten UK democracy.
Rubbish. As a great man once said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. As we have seen with Russia and China, autocrats will join up to roll back democracy. Every new autocracy builds up the anti-democratic forces for the worse.
Quite right. We’ll just get our chips from thin air…..
Macron could not be clearer - and the even clearer parts were removed by Politico on the request of the Élysée. In his view, Taiwan is not Europe‘s problem, and Europe should not become „vassals“ of the United States. This brutally undermines his credibility as leader in Europe
There’s long been an isolationist strain in French politics - just as with the US. In neither case is it very sensible,
The French have always had a massive chip on their shoulder over the English-speaking powers. In reality, the democratic world needs to stick together to defend each other.
Not really. Russia and Turkey lost their admittedly fragile democracies; Mexico is on the same path. Taiwan's a more free and fair democracy than all those were, but so is Israel, and there's no guarantees about Israel's democracy right now. In none of these cases would a more authoritarian system threaten UK democracy.
Rubbish. As a great man once said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. As we have seen with Russia and China, autocrats will join up to roll back democracy. Every new autocracy builds up the anti-democratic forces for the worse.
In living memory, the USA funded coups against democratically elected governments while it was rolling out greater democracy in the southern states. So one is not really linked to another.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
No, I am saying major constitutional changes require a referendum, whether I like them or don't like them. That applies to Scottish independence or leaving the EU. Not how Hartlepool's pothole budget is managed.
Republicans moved 17 Trump administration circuit court judges without Democrats’ blue slips, according to Demand Justice, a liberal advocacy group. That was a change from prior practice and now progressives want Democrats to do the same with trial court-level judges.
But Biden has not joined that chorus. Nor has Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who remains noncommittal about moving the Colom nomination in light of Hyde-Smith’s refusal to return a blue slip...
US politics is badly frayed, but it’s not yet broken.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve mis
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
The usual left wing partisans here are just trying to make excuses for their elitist way of thinking, of not getting democratic consent for fundamentally changing the country. Now that they don't have the EU layer for their cohort to force their wishes on the people, they want to reinforce government by elite domestically.
In reality, a new democratic norm has been established that major constitutional changes - new EU treaties, EU membership, Scottish independence, switching to AV - requires the Great British public to agree. Elitists trying to take this power back from the people, especially to give more power to the parties, will pay the price. Just as when they did it over the Lisbon Treaty. They should face all out war and resistance.
We’ve never had a referendum on a new EU treaty. Bit of a moot point now of course.
I don’t think most people think the Great British public would need to agree to Scottish independence, just the Scottish public.
Quite right. We’ll just get our chips from thin air…..
Macron could not be clearer - and the even clearer parts were removed by Politico on the request of the Élysée. In his view, Taiwan is not Europe‘s problem, and Europe should not become „vassals“ of the United States. This brutally undermines his credibility as leader in Europe
There’s long been an isolationist strain in French politics - just as with the US. In neither case is it very sensible,
The French have always had a massive chip on their shoulder over the English-speaking powers. In reality, the democratic world needs to stick together to defend each other.
Not really. Russia and Turkey lost their admittedly fragile democracies; Mexico is on the same path. Taiwan's a more free and fair democracy than all those were, but so is Israel, and there's no guarantees about Israel's democracy right now. In none of these cases would a more authoritarian system threaten UK democracy.
Rubbish. As a great man once said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. As we have seen with Russia and China, autocrats will join up to roll back democracy. Every new autocracy builds up the anti-democratic forces for the worse.
In living memory, the USA funded coups against democratically elected governments while it was rolling out greater democracy in the southern states. So one is not really linked to another.
The last sentence is non-sequitur. A single example doesn't change a strong correlation. And even in your example, greater democracy in the former Confederacy took time to take effect. It resulted in things like Obama and Biden getting elected, who have defended forces of democracy in places from Liberia to Ukraine.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
The usual left wing partisans here are just trying to make excuses for their elitist way of thinking, of not getting democratic consent for fundamentally changing the country. Now that they don't have the EU layer for their cohort to force their wishes on the people, they want to reinforce government by elite domestically.
In reality, a new democratic norm has been established that major constitutional changes - new EU treaties, EU membership, Scottish independence, switching to AV - requires the Great British public to agree. Elitists trying to take this power back from the people, especially to give more power to the parties, will pay the price. Just as when they did it over the Lisbon Treaty. They should face all out war and resistance.
You are saying that Blair deserved to suffer all-out war for following British precedent in agreeing EU treaties through Parliament. That would be seditious were you being taken seriously, which fortunately for you is not the case.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve mis
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
The usual left wing partisans here are just trying to make excuses for their elitist way of thinking, of not getting democratic consent for fundamentally changing the country. Now that they don't have the EU layer for their cohort to force their wishes on the people, they want to reinforce government by elite domestically.
In reality, a new democratic norm has been established that major constitutional changes - new EU treaties, EU membership, Scottish independence, switching to AV - requires the Great British public to agree. Elitists trying to take this power back from the people, especially to give more power to the parties, will pay the price. Just as when they did it over the Lisbon Treaty. They should face all out war and resistance.
We’ve never had a referendum on a new EU treaty. Bit of a moot point now of course.
I don’t think most people think the Great British public would need to agree to Scottish independence, just the Scottish public.
It was widely accepted that we SHOULD have had a referendum on Lisbon, of course, which is why the elite got hammered for it. And yes, the portion of the British public directly affected by the changes should be the ones that vote.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
No, I am saying major constitutional changes require a referendum, whether I like them or don't like them. That applies to Scottish independence or leaving the EU. Not how Hartlepool's pothole budget is managed.
It seems oddly convenient that all the partisan changes to voting the Tories make are so trivial to you that you won’t even speak out against them on a message board, but we cross a threshold and then you talk of “all out war”.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
No, I am saying major constitutional changes require a referendum, whether I like them or don't like them. That applies to Scottish independence or leaving the EU. Not how Hartlepool's pothole budget is managed.
It seems oddly convenient that all the partisan changes to voting the Tories make are so trivial to you that you won’t even speak out against them on a message board, but we cross a threshold and then you talk of “all out war”.
The threshold applies whether Labour or the Tories make major changes that go to the heart of the constitution. And I have explained clearly the threshold and the reasons behind it.
A bigger question is why you are so hungry to force a fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain without putting it before the public. If you felt you had the arguments on your side, you would be comfortable winning a public referendum, especially as polls are in your favour.
But you know that the debate will show what a partisan disaster it would be, so you want put two fingers up to the public and force it down their throats.
It is always the Remainers that want this. Same reason they always wanted the EU. Sheer contempt for British people, British culture and British democracy.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
No, I am saying major constitutional changes require a referendum, whether I like them or don't like them. That applies to Scottish independence or leaving the EU. Not how Hartlepool's pothole budget is managed.
It seems oddly convenient that all the partisan changes to voting the Tories make are so trivial to you that you won’t even speak out against them on a message board, but we cross a threshold and then you talk of “all out war”.
The threshold applies whether Labour or the Tories make major changes that go to the heart of the constitution. And I have explained clearly the threshold and the reasons behind it.
A bigger question is why you are so hungry to force a fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain without putting it before the public. If you felt you had the arguments on your side, you would be comfortable winning a public referendum, especially as polls are in your favour.
But you know that the debate will show what a partisan disaster it would be, so you want put two fingers up to the public and force it down their throats.
It is always the Remainers that want this. Same reason they always wanted the EU. Sheer contempt for British people, British culture and British democracy.
Purely as a hypothetical, if a future government reduced people's rights by exiting an international court, would you be first to man the barricades in the all-out war of resistance?
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
The usual left wing partisans here are just trying to make excuses for their elitist way of thinking, of not getting democratic consent for fundamentally changing the country. Now that they don't have the EU layer for their cohort to force their wishes on the people, they want to reinforce government by elite domestically.
In reality, a new democratic norm has been established that major constitutional changes - new EU treaties, EU membership, Scottish independence, switching to AV - requires the Great British public to agree. Elitists trying to take this power back from the people, especially to give more power to the parties, will pay the price. Just as when they did it over the Lisbon Treaty. They should face all out war and resistance.
You are saying that Blair deserved to suffer all-out war for following British precedent in agreeing EU treaties through Parliament. That would be seditious were you being taken seriously, which fortunately for you is not the case.
Previous EU treaties didn't fundamentally alter the status of British law. Nor were the governments that passed them elected on a manifesto of a referendum over them.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
The usual left wing partisans here are just trying to make excuses for their elitist way of thinking, of not getting democratic consent for fundamentally changing the country. Now that they don't have the EU layer for their cohort to force their wishes on the people, they want to reinforce government by elite domestically.
In reality, a new democratic norm has been established that major constitutional changes - new EU treaties, EU membership, Scottish independence, switching to AV - requires the Great British public to agree. Elitists trying to take this power back from the people, especially to give more power to the parties, will pay the price. Just as when they did it over the Lisbon Treaty. They should face all out war and resistance.
You are saying that Blair deserved to suffer all-out war for following British precedent in agreeing EU treaties through Parliament. That would be seditious were you being taken seriously, which fortunately for you is not the case.
Previous EU treaties didn't fundamentally alter the status of British law. Nor were the governments that passed them elected on a manifesto of a referendum over them.
You see how your liberal use of "fundamentally" in your test of legitimate armed resistance looks like a partisan filter? So Maastricht fine, but Lisbon merits an IRA-type armed struggle?
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
No, I am saying major constitutional changes require a referendum, whether I like them or don't like them. That applies to Scottish independence or leaving the EU. Not how Hartlepool's pothole budget is managed.
It seems oddly convenient that all the partisan changes to voting the Tories make are so trivial to you that you won’t even speak out against them on a message board, but we cross a threshold and then you talk of “all out war”.
The threshold applies whether Labour or the Tories make major changes that go to the heart of the constitution. And I have explained clearly the threshold and the reasons behind it.
A bigger question is why you are so hungry to force a fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain without putting it before the public. If you felt you had the arguments on your side, you would be comfortable winning a public referendum, especially as polls are in your favour.
But you know that the debate will show what a partisan disaster it would be, so you want put two fingers up to the public and force it down their throats.
It is always the Remainers that want this. Same reason they always wanted the EU. Sheer contempt for British people, British culture and British democracy.
I suggested on the last thread STV for English local elections, the system already used for Scottish and Northern Irish local elections. Do you consider that a “fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain”?
I have made no proposal in this or the last thread to introduce electoral reform for Westminster without a referendum. I have pointed out that that could happen. It would be in keeping with British constitutional norms. I haven’t said I’m for or against it.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
No, I am saying major constitutional changes require a referendum, whether I like them or don't like them. That applies to Scottish independence or leaving the EU. Not how Hartlepool's pothole budget is managed.
It seems oddly convenient that all the partisan changes to voting the Tories make are so trivial to you that you won’t even speak out against them on a message board, but we cross a threshold and then you talk of “all out war”.
The threshold applies whether Labour or the Tories make major changes that go to the heart of the constitution. And I have explained clearly the threshold and the reasons behind it.
A bigger question is why you are so hungry to force a fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain without putting it before the public. If you felt you had the arguments on your side, you would be comfortable winning a public referendum, especially as polls are in your favour.
But you know that the debate will show what a partisan disaster it would be, so you want put two fingers up to the public and force it down their throats.
It is always the Remainers that want this. Same reason they always wanted the EU. Sheer contempt for British people, British culture and British democracy.
I suggested on the last thread STV for English local elections, the system already used for Scottish and Northern Irish local elections. Do you consider that a “fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain”?
I have made no proposal in this or the last thread to introduce electoral reform for Westminster without a referendum. I have pointed out that that could happen. It would be in keeping with British constitutional norms. I haven’t said I’m for or against it.
Changing to STV for local elections would not be a major change. Change to the system for electing MPs would be massive. Doing it without a referendum would completely upend the precedent set by the AV referendum. And equally by the Scottish and EU referendums for enacting major constitutional change. It is clearly not right that MPs can fundamentally change how they get their positions without the public agreeing.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
The usual left wing partisans here are just trying to make excuses for their elitist way of thinking, of not getting democratic consent for fundamentally changing the country. Now that they don't have the EU layer for their cohort to force their wishes on the people, they want to reinforce government by elite domestically.
In reality, a new democratic norm has been established that major constitutional changes - new EU treaties, EU membership, Scottish independence, switching to AV - requires the Great British public to agree. Elitists trying to take this power back from the people, especially to give more power to the parties, will pay the price. Just as when they did it over the Lisbon Treaty. They should face all out war and resistance.
You are saying that Blair deserved to suffer all-out war for following British precedent in agreeing EU treaties through Parliament. That would be seditious were you being taken seriously, which fortunately for you is not the case.
Previous EU treaties didn't fundamentally alter the status of British law. Nor were the governments that passed them elected on a manifesto of a referendum over them.
You see how your liberal use of "fundamentally" in your test of legitimate armed resistance looks like a partisan filter? So Maastricht fine, but Lisbon merits an IRA-type armed struggle?
For some mysterious reason "Free Antrim" bobs up to the surface of my memory well.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
The usual left wing partisans here are just trying to make excuses for their elitist way of thinking, of not getting democratic consent for fundamentally changing the country. Now that they don't have the EU layer for their cohort to force their wishes on the people, they want to reinforce government by elite domestically.
In reality, a new democratic norm has been established that major constitutional changes - new EU treaties, EU membership, Scottish independence, switching to AV - requires the Great British public to agree. Elitists trying to take this power back from the people, especially to give more power to the parties, will pay the price. Just as when they did it over the Lisbon Treaty. They should face all out war and resistance.
You are saying that Blair deserved to suffer all-out war for following British precedent in agreeing EU treaties through Parliament. That would be seditious were you being taken seriously, which fortunately for you is not the case.
Previous EU treaties didn't fundamentally alter the status of British law. Nor were the governments that passed them elected on a manifesto of a referendum over them.
You see how your liberal use of "fundamentally" in your test of legitimate armed resistance looks like a partisan filter? So Maastricht fine, but Lisbon merits an IRA-type armed struggle?
I have never said armed struggle. Clearly "all out war" is a metaphorical statement. Maastrict was a treaty I strongly disagreed with, but it didn't make us British law secondary in its own land.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
No, I am saying major constitutional changes require a referendum, whether I like them or don't like them. That applies to Scottish independence or leaving the EU. Not how Hartlepool's pothole budget is managed.
It seems oddly convenient that all the partisan changes to voting the Tories make are so trivial to you that you won’t even speak out against them on a message board, but we cross a threshold and then you talk of “all out war”.
The threshold applies whether Labour or the Tories make major changes that go to the heart of the constitution. And I have explained clearly the threshold and the reasons behind it.
A bigger question is why you are so hungry to force a fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain without putting it before the public. If you felt you had the arguments on your side, you would be comfortable winning a public referendum, especially as polls are in your favour.
But you know that the debate will show what a partisan disaster it would be, so you want put two fingers up to the public and force it down their throats.
It is always the Remainers that want this. Same reason they always wanted the EU. Sheer contempt for British people, British culture and British democracy.
I suggested on the last thread STV for English local elections, the system already used for Scottish and Northern Irish local elections. Do you consider that a “fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain”?
I have made no proposal in this or the last thread to introduce electoral reform for Westminster without a referendum. I have pointed out that that could happen. It would be in keeping with British constitutional norms. I haven’t said I’m for or against it.
Changing to STV for local elections would not be a major change. Change to the system for electing MPs would be massive. Doing it without a referendum would completely upend the precedent set by the AV referendum. And equally by the Scottish and EU referendums for enacting major constitutional change. It is clearly not right that MPs can fundamentally change how they get their positions without the public agreeing.
At Holyrood and Cardiff, I don't recall that the completely alien voting systems, as opposed to the existence of the parliaments, were ever referred to the public. And the former, at least, was a blatant fiddle by the ruling party in London, and its little chums in the LDs - as was freely admitted.
Edit: so basically you are picking your precedents to suit your argument, not the other way round.
I’m warming to the Greek approach. A Government changes the electoral system but that change doesn’t take effect until there’s been another election,
A Labour Government (with LD support) introduces legislation to change the voting system to STV. It loses the next election and a Conservative majority Government is elected which repeals the legislation but has to win an election under STV which it then loses to a Labour Party which re-introduces PR but has to win first under FPTP.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
No, I am saying major constitutional changes require a referendum, whether I like them or don't like them. That applies to Scottish independence or leaving the EU. Not how Hartlepool's pothole budget is managed.
It seems oddly convenient that all the partisan changes to voting the Tories make are so trivial to you that you won’t even speak out against them on a message board, but we cross a threshold and then you talk of “all out war”.
The threshold applies whether Labour or the Tories make major changes that go to the heart of the constitution. And I have explained clearly the threshold and the reasons behind it.
A bigger question is why you are so hungry to force a fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain without putting it before the public. If you felt you had the arguments on your side, you would be comfortable winning a public referendum, especially as polls are in your favour.
But you know that the debate will show what a partisan disaster it would be, so you want put two fingers up to the public and force it down their throats.
It is always the Remainers that want this. Same reason they always wanted the EU. Sheer contempt for British people, British culture and British democracy.
I suggested on the last thread STV for English local elections, the system already used for Scottish and Northern Irish local elections. Do you consider that a “fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain”?
I have made no proposal in this or the last thread to introduce electoral reform for Westminster without a referendum. I have pointed out that that could happen. It would be in keeping with British constitutional norms. I haven’t said I’m for or against it.
Changing to STV for local elections would not be a major change. Change to the system for electing MPs would be massive. Doing it without a referendum would completely upend the precedent set by the AV referendum. And equally by the Scottish and EU referendums for enacting major constitutional change. It is clearly not right that MPs can fundamentally change how they get their positions without the public agreeing.
whether they can do it, and whether they should do it is another matter. A party elected with a majority with a manifesto pledge to change the voting system to a specific system could make the change. whether politically that is the best idea is another thing.
things won't change while Labour and Tory alike see the current system as a method of getting a working majority most of the time.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
No, I am saying major constitutional changes require a referendum, whether I like them or don't like them. That applies to Scottish independence or leaving the EU. Not how Hartlepool's pothole budget is managed.
It seems oddly convenient that all the partisan changes to voting the Tories make are so trivial to you that you won’t even speak out against them on a message board, but we cross a threshold and then you talk of “all out war”.
The threshold applies whether Labour or the Tories make major changes that go to the heart of the constitution. And I have explained clearly the threshold and the reasons behind it.
A bigger question is why you are so hungry to force a fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain without putting it before the public. If you felt you had the arguments on your side, you would be comfortable winning a public referendum, especially as polls are in your favour.
But you know that the debate will show what a partisan disaster it would be, so you want put two fingers up to the public and force it down their throats.
It is always the Remainers that want this. Same reason they always wanted the EU. Sheer contempt for British people, British culture and British democracy.
I suggested on the last thread STV for English local elections, the system already used for Scottish and Northern Irish local elections. Do you consider that a “fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain”?
I have made no proposal in this or the last thread to introduce electoral reform for Westminster without a referendum. I have pointed out that that could happen. It would be in keeping with British constitutional norms. I haven’t said I’m for or against it.
Changing to STV for local elections would not be a major change. Change to the system for electing MPs would be massive. Doing it without a referendum would completely upend the precedent set by the AV referendum. And equally by the Scottish and EU referendums for enacting major constitutional change. It is clearly not right that MPs can fundamentally change how they get their positions without the public agreeing.
Great. I’m glad we agree that I’m not trying to force a fundamental thingamajig.
The British constitution is “unwritten”. I think it would be difficult for a government to make a big change to the system for electing MPs without a clear mandate. However, depending on what changes are being proposed, I think it would be difficult to deny that that mandate exists if we’re talking about a manifesto commitment in a general election, which is the traditional way of determining if the public agrees to something.
If you feel a referendum should be required, then to enforce that you’d have to introduce a huge remaking of the British constitution to replace Parliamentary sovereignty with a written constitution. Some people support that. I think it’s still LibDem policy. I’m sure they’d welcome a membership application from you.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
First time that I mentioned them was in response to your post. In any event I would argue that they were different reforms in a different time.
The thing about history - especially the significance of certain events - is that is is a question of opinions and consensus not right or wrong. Macaulay had different views to AJP Taylor or Trevor Roper. I rather like Saul David and find David Cannadine hard going… Dalrymple is interesting but I think over stretches to make his case.
The argument is relatively simple from a philosophical perspective. Parliament’s power is viewed as deriving from popular support (this is an evolution from the historical perspective where it was derived at the point of a sword). Parliament has absolute freedom to change whatever rules it likes that are encompassed within those powers. This includes, inter alia: setting rules for local elections; devolving powers (eg Scotland) provided they can be reclaimed; international Treaties provided they are static; requiring ID or changing the definition of the franchise (eg voting age, property qualifications).
What parliament does *not* have the right to do is permanently alienate powers (eg evolutionary treaties) or change the basis on which it is elected without authority from the source of its powers. This, for example, a parliament can not change the term of a parliament from 5 to 7 years or the method of election without gaining permission from the source of their authority.
Fundamentally Parliament’s power derives from its position as Representatives of the People not from some innate source.
Labour strategists are cock-a-hoop with how the adverts have landed. The first advert tweeted has received 20.8 million views, making it arguably the most successful Labour attack in recent memory. A party insider said: “Nice doesn’t win elections. They have got used to Labour shirking the dirty stuff. That’s changed.”...
...The party is not going to stop there. According to senior Labour sources, one of the next attack ads will suggest the PM has “effectively decriminalised rape”.
It will claim that under the Tories “only 1.6 per cent of rapists have been charged”. A source said: “We aren’t talking to Twitter. We are talking to the vast majority of the country who want to see child rapists locked up and know the Tories have destroyed the criminal justice system. [Sunak] is leading the government that is responsible and he has got the man [Jeremy Hunt] who butchered the NHS as his chancellor.”
It is understood Labour drew up the messages some time ago and have been waiting for the right time to deploy them....
...It has even been claimed that a group of former Tory election staffers have turned against their own party and approached Labour to help formulate their election strategy.
This is all ultimately for nought if the Labour Party won't advance a viable alternative. As with all the rest of the myriad problems with public services, they need to formulate a plan to fix them and find from somewhere the colossal sums of money needed to pay for the plan.
It's where the money's meant to come from that's likely to prove their undoing, in the end. They can probably get away with a certain amount of borrowing to invest for infrastructure projects, albeit that they're going to have to be extremely careful not to repeat the mistakes of PFI and end up saddling public sector organisations with even more debt servicing obligations. However, ultimately they need to service the ongoing costs of, for example, paying more for care home places so the staff can be paid enough not to sod off to Aldi, and putting tens of thousands of extra police on the streets, by raising an awful lot of tax.
Low and middle income earners have already been bled white and there's no indication that Labour are willing to milk the obvious source of extra revenue which is asset wealth - residential and commercial property, stocks and shares. So where's the money to pay for all this stuff?
We can’t afford to bring alleged rapists to trial is really not going to cut the mustard. I am pretty sure people will take additional taxes on wealth to sort the criminal justice system out.
The fundamental issue is that the PFI spending from the Blair/Brown government is now coming due. All they did was spending today’s money yesterday.
Today we have to cover the bills for both periods.
There really isn’t much money left.
FPT - that isn’t how PFI is supposed to work. At the end of the term the client is supposed to be delivered a hospital/school/etc in good working order.
Yes but doesn’t the financing have to be paid off as well - simplistically it’s hire purchase.
I was 9. It was 1970 in Carnoustie and I both leafleted and canvassed (seriously) for Ted Heath in Carnoustie in the then safe Tory seat of Angus. Precocious or weird? Take your pick.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
I think there are two different questions here:
Would it be possible for a political party to change the electoral system without a referendum?
Yes.
Would it be wise?
No, it would not.
Now, there are nuances here. If the Conservative Party won a General Election with the manifesto promise to introduce PR (and then did so), then that would be very different to a situation where it was a prize offered up in coalition negotiations.
Two more nuances would be that there is a recent precedent for changing the voting system, which was rejected in a referendum, and that those most in favour of changing the system are smaller parties who use arguments that thinly disguise the electoral benefit to themselves personally.
It's unlikely that either the SNP or LDs would personally benefit from PR in Westminster elections. The former would be down to 15-30 MPs for the foreseeable future. The latter would immediately split into pro-Tory and pro-Labour factions. They would benefit in the sense that no PR system would deliver a Tory majority on 37%, but this is hardly personal.
Most European countries with PR don't have multiple "liberal" parties, so I'm not convinced that the LDs would split.
I like the game of thrones reference… Spring Is Coming
I really hope this comes to something. It’s been extremely hyped up. Makes sense I suppose in the psyops sense if it scares the shit out of Russian soldiers, but will it?
The downside is if this spring offensive peters out into nothing much, Europe and the US might lose heart and ease up on the support. A 1918 spring offensive repeat wouldn’t be a good precedent.
I helped my mum vote for Michael Mates in the 1987 election. I remember the Tory leadership contest of November 1990 well, and their horror that Heseltine could win it.
In 1992 I wanted to buy blue balloons to fly out the car window to demonstrate my support for Major. I was scared of Kinnock.
I wasn't taken in by Blair. I ran the mock elections at my school in 1997, and the Tories won - legitimately, I might add.
My first election was 2001. I was extremely depressed the day after and went home from university with my tail between my legs.
I was convinced Blair was invincible.
2001 was the only General Election where I lost money: I sold the Labour Majority (at something like £2/seat) on the basis of "tactical unwind".
I like the game of thrones reference… Spring Is Coming
I really hope this comes to something. It’s been extremely hyped up. Makes sense I suppose in the psyops sense if it scares the shit out of Russian soldiers, but will it?
The downside is if this spring offensive peters out into nothing much, Europe and the US might lose heart and ease up on the support. A 1918 spring offensive repeat wouldn’t be a good precedent.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
First time that I mentioned them was in response to your post. In any event I would argue that they were different reforms in a different time.
The thing about history - especially the significance of certain events - is that is is a question of opinions and consensus not right or wrong. Macaulay had different views to AJP Taylor or Trevor Roper. I rather like Saul David and find David Cannadine hard going… Dalrymple is interesting but I think over stretches to make his case.
The argument is relatively simple from a philosophical perspective. Parliament’s power is viewed as deriving from popular support (this is an evolution from the historical perspective where it was derived at the point of a sword). Parliament has absolute freedom to change whatever rules it likes that are encompassed within those powers. This includes, inter alia: setting rules for local elections; devolving powers (eg Scotland) provided they can be reclaimed; international Treaties provided they are static; requiring ID or changing the definition of the franchise (eg voting age, property qualifications).
What parliament does *not* have the right to do is permanently alienate powers (eg evolutionary treaties) or change the basis on which it is elected without authority from the source of its powers. This, for example, a parliament can not change the term of a parliament from 5 to 7 years or the method of election without gaining permission from the source of their authority.
Fundamentally Parliament’s power derives from its position as Representatives of the People not from some innate source.
That’s the argument you are trying to advance. It is not concordant with orthodox understanding of how the British constitutional system works.
The questionable bit is that you put changing the franchise in one box, but put changing the voting system in another box. Going from FPTP to AV, for example, would be far less significant a change than, say, removing the vote from all women.
The law still rightly requires there to be services that meet the needs of trans people and organisations could of course opt to provide some services on the basis of the gender in which people identify, but not at the expense of single-sex provision for women who need it.
This has not stopped some LGBT charities reacting with shamefully irresponsible levels of hyperbole. Mermaids has accused the EHRC of “seeking to strip trans people’s rights”; the chief executive of Stonewall has said it constitutes “a sustained assault on the human rights of trans people”.
I suspect the real beef is the failure of the government and the EHRC to align with their controversial worldview that being a woman is purely a matter of self-identification, rendering biological sex irrelevant. Stonewall has openly campaigned for the Equality Act’s protections for single-sex services to be scrapped and organisations it has advised on equalities law have been found to have wrongly understood and applied the law “as Stonewall would prefer it to be”.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
I think there are two different questions here:
Would it be possible for a political party to change the electoral system without a referendum?
Yes.
Would it be wise?
No, it would not.
Now, there are nuances here. If the Conservative Party won a General Election with the manifesto promise to introduce PR (and then did so), then that would be very different to a situation where it was a prize offered up in coalition negotiations.
Two more nuances would be that there is a recent precedent for changing the voting system, which was rejected in a referendum, and that those most in favour of changing the system are smaller parties who use arguments that thinly disguise the electoral benefit to themselves personally.
It's unlikely that either the SNP or LDs would personally benefit from PR in Westminster elections. The former would be down to 15-30 MPs for the foreseeable future. The latter would immediately split into pro-Tory and pro-Labour factions. They would benefit in the sense that no PR system would deliver a Tory majority on 37%, but this is hardly personal.
Most European countries with PR don't have multiple "liberal" parties, so I'm not convinced that the LDs would split.
what I suspect would happen is that Labour and the Tories would, over time, try to remain on the center left/right and your far left/right parties would pick up votes essentially splitting the left/right blocks. as for the LDs there'd be a greater squeeze on the middle ground with more polarisation than there is now.
The current system does give one of the two main parties an incentive not to be too extreme.
I was 9. It was 1970 in Carnoustie and I both leafleted and canvassed (seriously) for Ted Heath in Carnoustie in the then safe Tory seat of Angus. Precocious or weird? Take your pick.
I reckon actively canvassing for the Conservatives stops being weird after 35. Below 25 is reserved for the truly odd. And less than 18 is Rees-Mogg territory.
First game behind the stumps for my village team for over 3 years, in a charity game. I've just dropped an absolute dolly on the second ball of the first over. I don't think I'll get a permanent recall. It's raining, so I'm hoping it's done as my confidence is shot to pieces!
I was 9. It was 1970 in Carnoustie and I both leafleted and canvassed (seriously) for Ted Heath in Carnoustie in the then safe Tory seat of Angus. Precocious or weird? Take your pick.
I was 9. It was 1970 in Carnoustie and I both leafleted and canvassed (seriously) for Ted Heath in Carnoustie in the then safe Tory seat of Angus. Precocious or weird? Take your pick.
I reckon actively canvassing for the Conservatives stops being weird after 35. Below 25 is reserved for the truly odd. And less than 18 is Rees-Mogg territory.
It was a very different Tory party in those days of course. I was a one nation Tory then and have remained so almost all of my life with a detour to the SDP when the Tories went too far right. I was happy under Cameron, particularly in the Coalition. The current party...not so much.
A group of Florida neo-Nazis who recently projected a swastika onto a downtown Jacksonville building say the national hysteria drummed up over drag queens is helping them recruit new members, according to NPR.
The neo-Nazi group, National Socialist Florida, told NPR that conversations about recent legislation pushed by Republicans targeting drag shows have helped them recruit new members.
"What we have seen is certain types of activism definitely gets interest and recruitment up," Josh Nunes, the leader of the group, told NPR. "And that's where like the drag queen shit — like everybody wants to be a part of the team shutting that down."
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
Of course the 19th century reform acts were hugely significant and partisan.
But our understanding of the constitution has evolved - power is now commonly understood as deriving from the electorate rather than some divine right (except for @HYUFD )
The better parallel is the Glorious Revolution - in that situation the crown accepted that the source of power had shifted and (unlike in the War of the Three Kingdoms) didn’t try to resist that shift. What you are trying to do is resist the shift of sovereign authority from Parliament to the electorate
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that you posted a bunch of things that aren’t true.
You have now backtracked to making a case that, in the future, certain changes in the electoral system should require a referendum. One can try to make that case. What you would like to be the case is, of course, quite distinct from what is the case.
So what have I posted that is not true?
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
You misrepresented past Representation of the People Acts. On the previous thread, excuse me if I’ve misremembered who said what, but I believe you said voting reform would require a referendum. Now you’re saying it should require a referendum. “Would” was not true.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
First time that I mentioned them was in response to your post. In any event I would argue that they were different reforms in a different time.
The thing about history - especially the significance of certain events - is that is is a question of opinions and consensus not right or wrong. Macaulay had different views to AJP Taylor or Trevor Roper. I rather like Saul David and find David Cannadine hard going… Dalrymple is interesting but I think over stretches to make his case.
The argument is relatively simple from a philosophical perspective. Parliament’s power is viewed as deriving from popular support (this is an evolution from the historical perspective where it was derived at the point of a sword). Parliament has absolute freedom to change whatever rules it likes that are encompassed within those powers. This includes, inter alia: setting rules for local elections; devolving powers (eg Scotland) provided they can be reclaimed; international Treaties provided they are static; requiring ID or changing the definition of the franchise (eg voting age, property qualifications).
What parliament does *not* have the right to do is permanently alienate powers (eg evolutionary treaties) or change the basis on which it is elected without authority from the source of its powers. This, for example, a parliament can not change the term of a parliament from 5 to 7 years or the method of election without gaining permission from the source of their authority.
Fundamentally Parliament’s power derives from its position as Representatives of the People not from some innate source.
That’s the argument you are trying to advance. It is not concordant with orthodox understanding of how the British constitutional system works.
The questionable bit is that you put changing the franchise in one box, but put changing the voting system in another box. Going from FPTP to AV, for example, would be far less significant a change than, say, removing the vote from all women.
Views on the constitution have evolved since you were at school I suspect…
I take your point on the removing of the vote from women (and suspect in practice that would end up with a referendum if anyone was numb enough to propose it). The difference is between fundamental changes and administrative changes when you are talking about the parliamentary franchise.
It seems a political impossibility that Dominic Raab will survive the inquiry into bullying allegations against him. The weight of anecdotal evidence already in the public domain is overwhelming.
One senior civil servant tells me there will be “mass resignations” if the deputy PM is not forced to resign when the report is published, probably by the end of the month. So a big vacancy is imminent.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
I think there are two different questions here:
Would it be possible for a political party to change the electoral system without a referendum?
Yes.
Would it be wise?
No, it would not.
Now, there are nuances here. If the Conservative Party won a General Election with the manifesto promise to introduce PR (and then did so), then that would be very different to a situation where it was a prize offered up in coalition negotiations.
Two more nuances would be that there is a recent precedent for changing the voting system, which was rejected in a referendum, and that those most in favour of changing the system are smaller parties who use arguments that thinly disguise the electoral benefit to themselves personally.
It's unlikely that either the SNP or LDs would personally benefit from PR in Westminster elections. The former would be down to 15-30 MPs for the foreseeable future. The latter would immediately split into pro-Tory and pro-Labour factions. They would benefit in the sense that no PR system would deliver a Tory majority on 37%, but this is hardly personal.
Most European countries with PR don't have multiple "liberal" parties, so I'm not convinced that the LDs would split.
what I suspect would happen is that Labour and the Tories would, over time, try to remain on the center left/right and your far left/right parties would pick up votes essentially splitting the left/right blocks. as for the LDs there'd be a greater squeeze on the middle ground with more polarisation than there is now.
The current system does give one of the two main parties an incentive not to be too extreme.
One of the reasons 2019 was so unsatisfactory for Mr and Mrs Voter.
Pretty much everyone (including Lib Dems) went for a strategy of going quite extreme on the grounds that the Otherlots were going even more extreme.
It's a filling or a root canal or extraction. There is no drug legally obtainable even via prescription afaik that works against an abcess. Dentists may prove me incorrect but that's my experience. Short term run brandy over the tooth
First bloody wasp of the year and it was a whopper. Easy to forget the downside of sunny weather.
Wasp - or hornet?
Ultra whoppers are likely a queen hornet.
Several wasps around today, so much so that the lunchtime diners at Le Comptoir de L’Oncle Jules in Cormatin (which was fully booked of course, so we had to dine elsewhere) were already having their meal disrupted by the little critters today. Last summer was l’année de la guêpe. I’d had high hopes for this year after a colder winter but it seems the spring offensive has already begun.
There are still a few around collecting wood for their spitty nests, as golden hour settles over the barn conversion building site
I was 9. It was 1970 in Carnoustie and I both leafleted and canvassed (seriously) for Ted Heath in Carnoustie in the then safe Tory seat of Angus. Precocious or weird? Take your pick.
I reckon actively canvassing for the Conservatives stops being weird after 35. Below 25 is reserved for the truly odd. And less than 18 is Rees-Mogg territory.
It was a very different Tory party in those days of course. I was a one nation Tory then and have remained so almost all of my life with a detour to the SDP when the Tories went too far right. I was happy under Cameron, particularly in the Coalition. The current party...not so much.
Do you remember how your door knocking went down? I'd be looking around for nanny and the Rolls if accosted by a tween on the merits of the invisible hand.
A group of Florida neo-Nazis who recently projected a swastika onto a downtown Jacksonville building say the national hysteria drummed up over drag queens is helping them recruit new members, according to NPR.
The neo-Nazi group, National Socialist Florida, told NPR that conversations about recent legislation pushed by Republicans targeting drag shows have helped them recruit new members.
"What we have seen is certain types of activism definitely gets interest and recruitment up," Josh Nunes, the leader of the group, told NPR. "And that's where like the drag queen shit — like everybody wants to be a part of the team shutting that down."
It seems a political impossibility that Dominic Raab will survive the inquiry into bullying allegations against him. The weight of anecdotal evidence already in the public domain is overwhelming.
One senior civil servant tells me there will be “mass resignations” if the deputy PM is not forced to resign when the report is published, probably by the end of the month. So a big vacancy is imminent.
The recent Rishi love-in has to end at some point. Perhaps Raab-gate is the moment. It’s like the entire right-leaning media have been pouring into the opposition 22 and working through the phases relentlessly like it’s the 75th minute and a converted try will tie things. Someone or something (and Raab may fit the bill) needs to commit a foul and give the opposition a penalty they can launch into touch back in the Tory half.
I was 9. It was 1970 in Carnoustie and I both leafleted and canvassed (seriously) for Ted Heath in Carnoustie in the then safe Tory seat of Angus. Precocious or weird? Take your pick.
I reckon actively canvassing for the Conservatives stops being weird after 35. Below 25 is reserved for the truly odd. And less than 18 is Rees-Mogg territory.
It was a very different Tory party in those days of course. I was a one nation Tory then and have remained so almost all of my life with a detour to the SDP when the Tories went too far right. I was happy under Cameron, particularly in the Coalition. The current party...not so much.
Do you remember how your door knocking went down? I'd be looking around for nanny and the Rolls if accosted by a tween on the merits of the invisible hand.
People listened very politely as I recall. I was very keen on economics (despite not having studied it at that time). Must have been a bit weird in hindsight.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
The usual left wing partisans here are just trying to make excuses for their elitist way of thinking, of not getting democratic consent for fundamentally changing the country. Now that they don't have the EU layer for their cohort to force their wishes on the people, they want to reinforce government by elite domestically.
In reality, a new democratic norm has been established that major constitutional changes - new EU treaties, EU membership, Scottish independence, switching to AV - requires the Great British public to agree. Elitists trying to take this power back from the people, especially to give more power to the parties, will pay the price. Just as when they did it over the Lisbon Treaty. They should face all out war and resistance.
You are saying that Blair deserved to suffer all-out war for following British precedent in agreeing EU treaties through Parliament. That would be seditious were you being taken seriously, which fortunately for you is not the case.
Previous EU treaties didn't fundamentally alter the status of British law. Nor were the governments that passed them elected on a manifesto of a referendum over them.
I'm not sure that's true: Maastricht, for example, introduced the concept that you needed to treat EU citizens as you would your own citizens (with the exception of voting in national elections).
I like the game of thrones reference… Spring Is Coming
I really hope this comes to something. It’s been extremely hyped up. Makes sense I suppose in the psyops sense if it scares the shit out of Russian soldiers, but will it?
The downside is if this spring offensive peters out into nothing much, Europe and the US might lose heart and ease up on the support. A 1918 spring offensive repeat wouldn’t be a good precedent.
Agreed... I'd guess it is psychops.
As much as I detest what the Russians have done, I am personally hoping that the war can just be resolved in a way that is not too favourable to Russia, so it doesn't reward or vindicate their action of invading another country. Perhaps something like the fate of Finland in 1945. I don't think that this can happen if all the hopes are channelled in to Russia being 'beaten back' on the battlefield. That could happen, but it may not, and if you are advocating for the former you have to also contemplate the latter.
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
I think there are two different questions here:
Would it be possible for a political party to change the electoral system without a referendum?
Yes.
Would it be wise?
No, it would not.
Now, there are nuances here. If the Conservative Party won a General Election with the manifesto promise to introduce PR (and then did so), then that would be very different to a situation where it was a prize offered up in coalition negotiations.
Two more nuances would be that there is a recent precedent for changing the voting system, which was rejected in a referendum, and that those most in favour of changing the system are smaller parties who use arguments that thinly disguise the electoral benefit to themselves personally.
It's unlikely that either the SNP or LDs would personally benefit from PR in Westminster elections. The former would be down to 15-30 MPs for the foreseeable future. The latter would immediately split into pro-Tory and pro-Labour factions. They would benefit in the sense that no PR system would deliver a Tory majority on 37%, but this is hardly personal.
Most European countries with PR don't have multiple "liberal" parties, so I'm not convinced that the LDs would split.
what I suspect would happen is that Labour and the Tories would, over time, try to remain on the center left/right and your far left/right parties would pick up votes essentially splitting the left/right blocks. as for the LDs there'd be a greater squeeze on the middle ground with more polarisation than there is now.
The current system does give one of the two main parties an incentive not to be too extreme.
One of the reasons 2019 was so unsatisfactory for Mr and Mrs Voter.
Pretty much everyone (including Lib Dems) went for a strategy of going quite extreme on the grounds that the Otherlots were going even more extreme.
I did nearly add that 2019 was the exception. it did however force Labour to be less extreme as Labour members realised they can do nothing in opposition and voted for leader someone who could have a chance of beating an extreme Tory party.
So 1992 makes you field old. I was a candidate in 1974 and 1979 and was a paid agent in 1964!
Thank you. I have been rather bruised this thread by all the people who I had assumed were basicakly my age who turj out not to remember a GE before thus century. Nice to have the balance redressed a little.
I’m warming to the Greek approach. A Government changes the electoral system but that change doesn’t take effect until there’s been another election,
A Labour Government (with LD support) introduces legislation to change the voting system to STV. It loses the next election and a Conservative majority Government is elected which repeals the legislation but has to win an election under STV which it then loses to a Labour Party which re-introduces PR but has to win first under FPTP.
Could it be more amusing?
It's very important that we think through not just the implications for democracy, but also for betting markets.
The changes I am keenest on are the ones that would increase the number, and the frequency, of markets.
My preferred system, therefore, is to retain FPTP, but to move to rolling General Elections. Every two weeks, there would be five by-elections.
But here's the thing: where they happened would be completely random - five seats would be chosen at random, and then there would be an incredibly concentrated set of campaigns.
It would allow voters to give feedback much quicker to their elected representatives, it would mean no MP was safe, and it would introduce a myriad of betting markets.
I remember the results coming in on the Friday morning in 1970. The nearby Belper result came in and there was some bloke blubbing because he had lost. Turns out it was George Brown, Labour's deputy leader.
They were probably tears of 100 proof alcohol.
The 1970 election coverage is available on iplayer at the moment - presided over by an amiable Cliff Michelmore with Robin Day doing interviews. All very good natured. The defeat of George Brown is definitely the big result and there was a very nice tribute to him from Jim Callaghan from his own count at which NF banners are very prominent. What is quite striking in the coverage is the preoccupation with Enoch Powell and his impact on the result. Powell's declaration is one of the earliest results and he certainly secured a big swing.
A group of Florida neo-Nazis who recently projected a swastika onto a downtown Jacksonville building say the national hysteria drummed up over drag queens is helping them recruit new members, according to NPR.
The neo-Nazi group, National Socialist Florida, told NPR that conversations about recent legislation pushed by Republicans targeting drag shows have helped them recruit new members.
"What we have seen is certain types of activism definitely gets interest and recruitment up," Josh Nunes, the leader of the group, told NPR. "And that's where like the drag queen shit — like everybody wants to be a part of the team shutting that down."
The various representation of the people acts just said “we will use the old system but allow more people to vote”.
That is totally fine. It’s why the boundary changes are also fine as is ID.
A fundamental change in the system - to PR - especially where so many people gleefully claim it will screw one side - without authority doesn’t create a stable political system because it introduces the suspicion of partisan bias in setting the fundamental rules of the game
To describe the various Representation of the People Acts as “just” doing anything is woefully historically illiterate. The massive expansions of the franchise involved are far more significant than switching from FPTP to, say, STV. Moreover, they didn’t just expand the franchise. For example, the 1948 franchise, IIRC, abolished the use of STV for certain Commons seats that had existed up until that time.
We should try to avoid the appearance of partisan bias, but let’s be realistic. These past acts were usually partisan. They tended to benefit one or more party over others. The last one I listed was the reform of the House of Lords, where most of the hereditary peers were expelled, who were overwhelmingly Conservative, for example. (That bill also introduced AV for by-elections to the Lords.)
There are arguments for and against the use of referendums, but they are a constitutional novelty in the UK, for any purpose.
I think this point of view is functionalist and even cynical, but probably right.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
The usual left wing partisans here are just trying to make excuses for their elitist way of thinking, of not getting democratic consent for fundamentally changing the country. Now that they don't have the EU layer for their cohort to force their wishes on the people, they want to reinforce government by elite domestically.
In reality, a new democratic norm has been established that major constitutional changes - new EU treaties, EU membership, Scottish independence, switching to AV - requires the Great British public to agree. Elitists trying to take this power back from the people, especially to give more power to the parties, will pay the price. Just as when they did it over the Lisbon Treaty. They should face all out war and resistance.
You are saying that Blair deserved to suffer all-out war for following British precedent in agreeing EU treaties through Parliament. That would be seditious were you being taken seriously, which fortunately for you is not the case.
Previous EU treaties didn't fundamentally alter the status of British law. Nor were the governments that passed them elected on a manifesto of a referendum over them.
I'm not sure that's true: Maastricht, for example, introduced the concept that you needed to treat EU citizens as you would your own citizens (with the exception of voting in national elections).
It was the removal of the veto in Lisbon that was the issue. It meant that Uk law could be changed against the wishes of parliament
A group of Florida neo-Nazis who recently projected a swastika onto a downtown Jacksonville building say the national hysteria drummed up over drag queens is helping them recruit new members, according to NPR.
The neo-Nazi group, National Socialist Florida, told NPR that conversations about recent legislation pushed by Republicans targeting drag shows have helped them recruit new members.
"What we have seen is certain types of activism definitely gets interest and recruitment up," Josh Nunes, the leader of the group, told NPR. "And that's where like the drag queen shit — like everybody wants to be a part of the team shutting that down."
How sad that people are so fragile that they feel threatened by a bloke in a dress.
some people are so fragile they feel threatened by rainbow flags
I'm not threatened by rainbow flags, though I find their ubiquity a tad irritating. I'm annoyed by trans flags because - given the status quo is that trans people do have rights, my inference is that the flyers of these flags support the wilder madness of the trans lobby, of which there is plenty. Much of which genuinely threatening.
Comments
Ultra whoppers are likely a queen hornet.
@timfarron
31 years ago today, Theresa and I shared both the same hairdo and the experience of defeat…
@yremogtnomnagol
I guess you just love experiencing defeat what with being a Blackburn fan as well as a Lib Dem 😂😂👍
@timfarron
I have built much character over the years…
https://twitter.com/timfarron/status/1645046132613971968?cxt=HHwWgICw2byvsNQtAAAA
In our bird box a pair of blue tits have been getting on at a cracking rate with nest building over the last few days. Quite strange how every every so often they hammer their bills against the woodwork! You'd think they'd get a headache!
I have made a case that Parliament’s power is derived from the electorate and that changes to the system of parliamentary elections should have a higher threshold.
You can disagree, but it’s not really a question of truth or falsehood.
To add: There is no precedent for changing the Westminster electoral system through referendum. So if people want a referendum for it, that's likely because it is in their interests to have another hurdle where some Dom character, backed by big money, can scupper it.
They were probably tears of 100 proof alcohol.
My only major objection is if someone were to claim that is a requirement to make a change, rather than a choice on how to make it. And people do make that claim.
Claiming that a change (in process, or policy, or whatever) is not really a change, but how things are done, can be quite successful I imagine. Then people who are not seeking change look like they are quibbling over nothing.
https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1645004329131159552
In reality, a new democratic norm has been established that major constitutional changes - new EU treaties, EU membership, Scottish independence, switching to AV - requires the Great British public to agree. Elitists trying to take this power back from the people, especially to give more power to the parties, will pay the price. Just as when they did it over the Lisbon Treaty. They should face all out war and resistance.
Indeed, if I’ve understood what you and @WillG are saying it is that changes you don’t like should have to go to a referendum, but other changes are fine, they don’t even require a manifesto commitment.
Klopp next for P45 ?
‘The Elite’s Destruction of Civic Customs Is Complete’
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/07/trump-indictment-roundup-future-00090838
Contradicted by their own story alongside.
White House pulls its punches over GOP judicial nomination blockade
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/06/white-house-pulls-punches-over-gop-judicial-nomination-blockade-00090824
… There are currently nearly 40 judicial vacancies that Biden could seek to fill in courts in red states. But the blue slip custom generally dictates that if a home-state senator doesn’t return the blue slip, the majority party halts the nomination.
Republicans moved 17 Trump administration circuit court judges without Democrats’ blue slips, according to Demand Justice, a liberal advocacy group. That was a change from prior practice and now progressives want Democrats to do the same with trial court-level judges.
But Biden has not joined that chorus. Nor has Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who remains noncommittal about moving the Colom nomination in light of Hyde-Smith’s refusal to return a blue slip...
US politics is badly frayed, but it’s not yet broken.
I don’t think most people think the Great British public would need to agree to Scottish independence, just the Scottish public.
Liverpool terrible at present
A bigger question is why you are so hungry to force a fundamental remaking of the core sovereign body in Britain without putting it before the public. If you felt you had the arguments on your side, you would be comfortable winning a public referendum, especially as polls are in your favour.
But you know that the debate will show what a partisan disaster it would be, so you want put two fingers up to the public and force it down their throats.
It is always the Remainers that want this. Same reason they always wanted the EU. Sheer contempt for British people, British culture and British democracy.
I have made no proposal in this or the last thread to introduce electoral reform for Westminster without a referendum. I have pointed out that that could happen. It would be in keeping with British constitutional norms. I haven’t said I’m for or against it.
Edit: so basically you are picking your precedents to suit your argument, not the other way round.
A Labour Government (with LD support) introduces legislation to change the voting system to STV. It loses the next election and a Conservative majority Government is elected which repeals the legislation but has to win an election under STV which it then loses to a Labour Party which re-introduces PR but has to win first under FPTP.
Could it be more amusing?
things won't change while Labour and Tory alike see the current system as a method of getting a working majority most of the time.
The British constitution is “unwritten”. I think it would be difficult for a government to make a big change to the system for electing MPs without a clear mandate. However, depending on what changes are being proposed, I think it would be difficult to deny that that mandate exists if we’re talking about a manifesto commitment in a general election, which is the traditional way of determining if the public agrees to something.
If you feel a referendum should be required, then to enforce that you’d have to introduce a huge remaking of the British constitution to replace Parliamentary sovereignty with a written constitution. Some people support that. I think it’s still LibDem policy. I’m sure they’d welcome a membership application from you.
The thing about history - especially the significance of certain events - is that is is a question of opinions and consensus not right or wrong. Macaulay had different views to AJP Taylor or Trevor Roper. I rather like Saul David and find David Cannadine hard going… Dalrymple is interesting but I think over stretches to make his case.
The argument is relatively simple from a philosophical perspective. Parliament’s power is viewed as deriving from popular support (this is an evolution from the historical perspective where it was derived at the point of a sword). Parliament has absolute freedom to change whatever rules it likes that are encompassed within those powers. This includes, inter alia: setting rules for local elections; devolving powers (eg Scotland) provided they can be reclaimed; international Treaties provided they are static; requiring ID or changing the definition of the franchise (eg voting age, property qualifications).
What parliament does *not* have the right to do is permanently alienate powers (eg evolutionary treaties) or change the basis on which it is elected without authority from the source of its powers. This, for example, a parliament can not change the term of a parliament from 5 to 7 years or the method of election without gaining permission from the source of their authority.
Fundamentally Parliament’s power derives from its position as Representatives of the People not from some innate source.
The downside is if this spring offensive peters out into nothing much, Europe and the US might lose heart and ease up on the support. A 1918 spring offensive repeat wouldn’t be a
good precedent.
The questionable bit is that you put changing the franchise in one box, but put changing the voting system in another box. Going from FPTP to AV, for example, would be far less significant a change than, say, removing the vote from all women.
This has not stopped some LGBT charities reacting with shamefully irresponsible levels of hyperbole. Mermaids has accused the EHRC of “seeking to strip trans people’s rights”; the chief executive of Stonewall has said it constitutes “a sustained assault on the human rights of trans people”.
I suspect the real beef is the failure of the government and the EHRC to align with their controversial worldview that being a woman is purely a matter of self-identification, rendering biological sex irrelevant. Stonewall has openly campaigned for the Equality Act’s protections for single-sex services to be scrapped and organisations it has advised on equalities law have been found to have wrongly understood and applied the law “as Stonewall would prefer it to be”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/09/at-last-consensus-emerging-on-protecting-women-only-spaces
The current system does give one of the two main parties an incentive not to be too extreme.
A group of Florida neo-Nazis who recently projected a swastika onto a downtown Jacksonville building say the national hysteria drummed up over drag queens is helping them recruit new members, according to NPR.
The neo-Nazi group, National Socialist Florida, told NPR that conversations about recent legislation pushed by Republicans targeting drag shows have helped them recruit new members.
"What we have seen is certain types of activism definitely gets interest and recruitment up," Josh Nunes, the leader of the group, told NPR. "And that's where like the drag queen shit — like everybody wants to be a part of the team shutting that down."
https://www.insider.com/neo-nazi-group-hysteria-drag-queens-helps-recruit-members-2023-3
I take your point on the removing of the vote from women (and suspect in practice that would end up with a referendum if anyone was numb enough to propose it). The difference is between fundamental changes and administrative changes when you are talking about the parliamentary franchise.
One senior civil servant tells me there will be “mass resignations” if the deputy PM is not forced to resign when the report is published, probably by the end of the month. So a big vacancy is imminent.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-has-a-wealth-problem-thats-why-he-needs-a-tory-version-of-angela-rayner-2zsrzqr2x
Pretty much everyone (including Lib Dems) went for a strategy of going quite extreme on the grounds that the Otherlots were going even more extreme.
There are still a few around collecting wood for their spitty nests, as golden hour settles over the barn conversion building site
Not sure they are ready to win the league
As much as I detest what the Russians have done, I am personally hoping that the war can just be resolved in a way that is not too favourable to Russia, so it doesn't reward or vindicate their action of invading another country. Perhaps something like the fate of Finland in 1945. I don't think that this can happen if all the hopes are channelled in to Russia being 'beaten back' on the battlefield. That could happen, but it may not, and if you are advocating for the former you have to also contemplate the latter.
City must be favourites now
The changes I am keenest on are the ones that would increase the number, and the frequency, of markets.
My preferred system, therefore, is to retain FPTP, but to move to rolling General Elections. Every two weeks, there would be five by-elections.
But here's the thing: where they happened would be completely random - five seats would be chosen at random, and then there would be an incredibly concentrated set of campaigns.
It would allow voters to give feedback much quicker to their elected representatives, it would mean no MP was safe, and it would introduce a myriad of betting markets.
The defeat of George Brown is definitely the big result and there was a very nice tribute to him from Jim Callaghan from his own count at which NF banners are very prominent. What is quite striking in the coverage is the preoccupation with Enoch Powell and his impact on the result. Powell's declaration is one of the earliest results and he certainly secured a big swing.
I'm annoyed by trans flags because - given the status quo is that trans people do have rights, my inference is that the flyers of these flags support the wilder madness of the trans lobby, of which there is plenty. Much of which genuinely threatening.