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.
Not a split into two parties I mean, but splitting toward viable and more dynamic alternatives like the Greens, for example. After PR it is hard to see the point of the LDs.
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.
Getting annoyed by a flag is a waste of your time, fella.
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.
You were a "One Nation Tory" at 9?
PB has to be the ONLY place where this raises neither giggle nor eyebrow.
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.
Getting annoyed by a flag is a waste of your time, fella.
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
There had been moves towards QMV over the years, even prior to Lisbon, albeit Lisbon extended the areas over which QMV applied.
I personally think Maastricht was the more consequential Treaty, but it's all a little by the by.
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.
Not a split into two parties I mean, but splitting toward viable and more dynamic alternatives like the Greens, for example. After PR it is hard to see the point of the LDs.
Most European countries with PR have a party that's a bit like the liberals and which gets 5-15%: there's D66 in the Netherlands, the FDP (who I grant you are Orange book) in Germany, and you could probably include Citizens in Spain.
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.
Getting annoyed by a flag is a waste of your time, fella.
I understand the slight irritation at pure holier than thou wokeism though. My son in an evening walk chat about diversity in politics last night was expressing outrage that Pete Buttegieg should deign to be a practising Christian. As if that makes him not bona fide gay.
I have the great fortune of an eldest son born instinctively right-on and lefty to his core, and a younger daughter born preternaturally capitalist and Thatcherite. Her comment after watching Titanic: “It was really sad when all the fancy rich people drowned”.
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).
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.
Getting annoyed by a flag is a waste of your time, fella.
It depends on the situation.
I just can't see why. I can't think of anything more pointless than being annoyed by a flag. Even if a neighbour flew a swastika, I'd think he was a dick, but it wouldn't annoy me. The resultant whooha as the rozzers turned up to arrest him might bug me, but the flag? I get that certain flags are rightly distasteful, but "annoyed" by a trans flag? No point.
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.
Getting annoyed by a flag is a waste of your time, fella.
It depends on the situation.
I can recall one time I screwed up - walking down a street near UCL, late one hot summer evening, during the World Cup, many years ago.
The nice young lady commented on all the flags of the different countries hanging from windows and how wonderful this was.
I pointed out that the one of flag was that of the ARENA party of El Salvador. Not the party of death squads. but the party of "We don't know anyone in a death squad, but if you give us the name of some lefties, the probability that a death squad will accidentally shoot them is terribly high. Shame that."
For some reason, this revelation upset her.
Personally I thought it a perfect commentary on multi-cultural societies.
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 realize there is one small flaw with my plan: it is possible for an MP to avoid the scrutiny of his constituents for a long time if he's very lucky. I would therefore propose that the process for picking which seats have by-elections is modified somewhat:
There is a big hat that is used for the "drawing" of constituencies. Each constituency gets the same number of tickets as weeks since the last by-election there. So, the longer an MP has been since he was last affirmed by the electorate, the more tickets are in the hat*. Therefore, the more likely they will be picked.
* It needn't literally be a hat. But we want something with - you know - some kind of pizzazz. This should be like the FA Cup draw, where everyone tunes in to see where the next elections will be.
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.
You were a "One Nation Tory" at 9?
PB has to be the ONLY place where this raises neither giggle nor eyebrow.
Well, I think we're all agreed we're not exactly representative, aren't we?
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.
Not a split into two parties I mean, but splitting toward viable and more dynamic alternatives like the Greens, for example. After PR it is hard to see the point of the LDs.
Most European countries with PR have a party that's a bit like the liberals and which gets 5-15%: there's D66 in the Netherlands, the FDP (who I grant you are Orange book) in Germany, and you could probably include Citizens in Spain.
Yes, the liberal centrist party is fairly omnipresent in most democracies and almost universally disdained by both left and right. Under STV the Lib Dems would probably enjoy similar VI to now, but a few more seats.
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.
I would actually go further than that. An electoral system is how we choose our representatives....( yes I disgree with the notion of representatives)
However its our system. It belong to us and if politicians who benefit from a system want to change it then a) they better convince the maority the new system is actually fairer
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 think in hindsight it was even worse than 1997.
It was sheer luck of the draw that the Tories didn't go backwards in seats.
i remember being on holiday in the algarve and my parents being upset that thatcher had won again in 87. They'd be even more upset if they knew if was gonna take 10 more years to get rid of the blue gits.
I remember the 1970 election, but only from a local Bromsgrove perspective. One of my teachers at Junior school was confused by all these posters advertising (a) Dance. Jim Dance won the seat for the Conservatives, but sadly he died a year later. The Conservatives lost the by election to Terry Davis, I remember that too. Davis lost to Hal Miller in 1974.
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
There had been moves towards QMV over the years, even prior to Lisbon, albeit Lisbon extended the areas over which QMV applied.
I personally think Maastricht was the more consequential Treaty, but it's all a little by the by.
Agreed on the significance of Maastricht - you are being uncommonly sensible today.
What Lisbon did was change the formula on QMV so we no longer had a veto…
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
I was five at the time, my father was working at a precinct, and my mother let me stay up late with her, listening to the returns on the radio. I don't remember much -- obviously -- but I do remember the announcers sounding surprised, as the results came in.
(Many years later, I recall reading about one of the reasons Gallup got the prediction wrong: corner houses. At that time pollsters sent workers out in person, with directions to question families in specific blocks. Many of the workers chose the first house they came to, which was usually on a corner. And in the US, then and probably now, families in corner houses tend to be wealthier, and there was a sharp difference in voting by wealth in that election.)
One follow-up: In 1952, Adlai Stevenson lost in a landslide to Eisenhower -- but still received more votes than Truman had in 1948. In fact, Stevenson received more votes than the sum of the votes for Truman, Strom Thurmond, and Henry Wallace. (Simplifying a bit, one can say that the Democratic Party had split in three before the 1948 election.)
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
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 realize there is one small flaw with my plan: it is possible for an MP to avoid the scrutiny of his constituents for a long time if he's very lucky. I would therefore propose that the process for picking which seats have by-elections is modified somewhat:
There is a big hat that is used for the "drawing" of constituencies. Each constituency gets the same number of tickets as weeks since the last by-election there. So, the longer an MP has been since he was last affirmed by the electorate, the more tickets are in the hat*. Therefore, the more likely they will be picked.
* It needn't literally be a hat. But we want something with - you know - some kind of pizzazz. This should be like the FA Cup draw, where everyone tunes in to see where the next elections will be.
Risk it will be like the National Lottery, though.
Start as a Saturday Night Light Entertainment Extravaganza in its own right (sadly Mystic Meg is no longer available), but in a few years it will be flashed on the bottom of the screen during Strictly.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
I went to Finland at New Year. I enjoyed it, but it smelt funny. No-one else in my family thought this, only me. By day 6, the smell had waned a bit - getting used to it, I thought - but I must admit I was glad when I came home and the world smelled normal again. But today the smell is back. And I am not in Finland. The only connection between now and then that I can see is that middle daughter has been under the weather. Could this be some covid thing? Could she have had covid then, and also last week (not inconceivable - my wife definitely had it)? And could I also have had it, without noticable symptoms - with the only symptom the world smelling funny? It's really hard to explain the smell, because all I can say is it smells like Finland. But clearly Finland wasn't to blame. (Sorry, Finland.)
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 realize there is one small flaw with my plan: it is possible for an MP to avoid the scrutiny of his constituents for a long time if he's very lucky. I would therefore propose that the process for picking which seats have by-elections is modified somewhat:
There is a big hat that is used for the "drawing" of constituencies. Each constituency gets the same number of tickets as weeks since the last by-election there. So, the longer an MP has been since he was last affirmed by the electorate, the more tickets are in the hat*. Therefore, the more likely they will be picked.
* It needn't literally be a hat. But we want something with - you know - some kind of pizzazz. This should be like the FA Cup draw, where everyone tunes in to see where the next elections will be.
Risk it will be like the National Lottery, though.
Start as a Saturday Night Light Entertainment Extravaganza in its own right (sadly Mystic Meg is no longer available), but in a few years it will be flashed on the bottom of the screen during Strictly.
Add in 2 week elections. Why just vote on one day?
Also change the law so that you are allowed to bribe the electorate with alcohol.
would it be a rolling two weeks or would they be announced at the start of the year like the football fixtures?
Rolling two weeks: it would keep it much more exciting.
Would the elections be in Government seats, or opposition ones? Safe seats, or marginals?
It would also mean local parties would need to be ready at any time for an election.
It's not too far off the model over in the States, where the polls are already every two years, and the special elections seem more frequent than Westminster by-elections these days.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
From the article it seems that other faiths are completely relaxed
Last night other faith leaders were relaxed about the Christian nature of the ceremony. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former founding Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'It is appropriate the formal ritualistic prayers of the Coronation ought to be Anglican as the King is from the Anglican faith.
'But the presence of other faith leaders will signify the importance that the King represents all the faith communities in the Kingdom.'
Pradip Gajjar, a Hindu leader, said: 'This is a Christian ceremony for a Christian King. I don't see a problem with that.'
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 realize there is one small flaw with my plan: it is possible for an MP to avoid the scrutiny of his constituents for a long time if he's very lucky. I would therefore propose that the process for picking which seats have by-elections is modified somewhat:
There is a big hat that is used for the "drawing" of constituencies. Each constituency gets the same number of tickets as weeks since the last by-election there. So, the longer an MP has been since he was last affirmed by the electorate, the more tickets are in the hat*. Therefore, the more likely they will be picked.
* It needn't literally be a hat. But we want something with - you know - some kind of pizzazz. This should be like the FA Cup draw, where everyone tunes in to see where the next elections will be.
I was bored and ran a quick monte carlo simulation of this. The purely random option results in a shorter longest interval between elections for a given seat (~2000 weeks for a 650 seat parliament) compared to your weighted scheme (~4000 weeks).
Now, that was after five seconds of coding, so I may have messed up somewhere.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
Bigots, the lot of them. What about the pagans, satanists, jedis, scientologists et al? And the atheists. There's more than just the boring bog standard sky fairies you know.
I went to Finland at New Year. I enjoyed it, but it smelt funny. No-one else in my family thought this, only me. By day 6, the smell had waned a bit - getting used to it, I thought - but I must admit I was glad when I came home and the world smelled normal again. But today the smell is back. And I am not in Finland. The only connection between now and then that I can see is that middle daughter has been under the weather. Could this be some covid thing? Could she have had covid then, and also last week (not inconceivable - my wife definitely had it)? And could I also have had it, without noticable symptoms - with the only symptom the world smelling funny? It's really hard to explain the smell, because all I can say is it smells like Finland. But clearly Finland wasn't to blame. (Sorry, Finland.)
This is fascinating. I have no insight on the subject, but it’s very interesting.
Smell is a funny thing. Today we walked past a patch of pavement that smelled - faintly, but definitively - of drains and fish. It took me straight to the Mediterranean. It was a nasty smell that evoked nice memories.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
Bigots, the lot of them. What about the pagans, satanists, jedis, scientologists et al? And the atheists. There's more than just the boring bog standard sky fairies you know.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid!"
About a week ago, I saw an immature bald eagle. (They lack the distinctive white head until they are at least in their third year.) I even got a photo of it with a crow sitting about a foot away from it, objecting to the eagle's presence. It's not a great photo, but maybe I can fix it up a little on the computer.
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 realize there is one small flaw with my plan: it is possible for an MP to avoid the scrutiny of his constituents for a long time if he's very lucky. I would therefore propose that the process for picking which seats have by-elections is modified somewhat:
There is a big hat that is used for the "drawing" of constituencies. Each constituency gets the same number of tickets as weeks since the last by-election there. So, the longer an MP has been since he was last affirmed by the electorate, the more tickets are in the hat*. Therefore, the more likely they will be picked.
* It needn't literally be a hat. But we want something with - you know - some kind of pizzazz. This should be like the FA Cup draw, where everyone tunes in to see where the next elections will be.
Risk it will be like the National Lottery, though.
Start as a Saturday Night Light Entertainment Extravaganza in its own right (sadly Mystic Meg is no longer available), but in a few years it will be flashed on the bottom of the screen during Strictly.
Risk?
What better way to get the electorate engaged than to make the electoral process an ongoing spectacle?
I went to Finland at New Year. I enjoyed it, but it smelt funny. No-one else in my family thought this, only me. By day 6, the smell had waned a bit - getting used to it, I thought - but I must admit I was glad when I came home and the world smelled normal again. But today the smell is back. And I am not in Finland. The only connection between now and then that I can see is that middle daughter has been under the weather. Could this be some covid thing? Could she have had covid then, and also last week (not inconceivable - my wife definitely had it)? And could I also have had it, without noticable symptoms - with the only symptom the world smelling funny? It's really hard to explain the smell, because all I can say is it smells like Finland. But clearly Finland wasn't to blame. (Sorry, Finland.)
This is fascinating. I have no insight on the subject, but it’s very interesting.
Smell is a funny thing. Today we walked past a patch of pavement that smelled - faintly, but definitively - of drains and fish. It took me straight to the Mediterranean. It was a nasty smell that evoked nice memories.
Smell is the sense with the greatest ability to evoke memories, for some reason.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
From the article it seems that other faiths are completely relaxed
Last night other faith leaders were relaxed about the Christian nature of the ceremony. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former founding Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'It is appropriate the formal ritualistic prayers of the Coronation ought to be Anglican as the King is from the Anglican faith.
'But the presence of other faith leaders will signify the importance that the King represents all the faith communities in the Kingdom.'
Pradip Gajjar, a Hindu leader, said: 'This is a Christian ceremony for a Christian King. I don't see a problem with that.'
This is about what the King wants, his woke tendencies are interesting.
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 realize there is one small flaw with my plan: it is possible for an MP to avoid the scrutiny of his constituents for a long time if he's very lucky. I would therefore propose that the process for picking which seats have by-elections is modified somewhat:
There is a big hat that is used for the "drawing" of constituencies. Each constituency gets the same number of tickets as weeks since the last by-election there. So, the longer an MP has been since he was last affirmed by the electorate, the more tickets are in the hat*. Therefore, the more likely they will be picked.
* It needn't literally be a hat. But we want something with - you know - some kind of pizzazz. This should be like the FA Cup draw, where everyone tunes in to see where the next elections will be.
Risk it will be like the National Lottery, though.
Start as a Saturday Night Light Entertainment Extravaganza in its own right (sadly Mystic Meg is no longer available), but in a few years it will be flashed on the bottom of the screen during Strictly.
Risk?
What better way to get the electorate engaged than to make the electoral process an ongoing spectacle?
Our politicians don't need any help to make an ongoing spectacle of themselves.
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."
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.
You were a "One Nation Tory" at 9?
PB has to be the ONLY place where this raises neither giggle nor eyebrow.
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.
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.
You were a "One Nation Tory" at 9?
PB has to be the ONLY place where this raises neither giggle nor eyebrow.
It's an oft repeated trope on PB that voters turn rightward as they age. I sense that several PBers don't have much room in which to make this transition.
About a week ago, I saw an immature bald eagle. (They lack the distinctive white head until they are at least in their third year.) I even got a photo of it with a crow sitting about a foot away from it, objecting to the eagle's presence. It's not a great photo, but maybe I can fix it up a little on the computer.
If only there was some physical sign that would enable us to identify immature humans.
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.
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.
Not a split into two parties I mean, but splitting toward viable and more dynamic alternatives like the Greens, for example. After PR it is hard to see the point of the LDs.
Most European countries with PR have a party that's a bit like the liberals and which gets 5-15%: there's D66 in the Netherlands, the FDP (who I grant you are Orange book) in Germany, and you could probably include Citizens in Spain.
This is true, but it seems to me that they're a historical contingency. Most European countries are going to have a party for public sector workers, a party for environmentalists, and a party for racists, because all these groups have distinctive political aims that require working through the political system. It's not clear to me whether upper-middle-class centrists are in a comparable position. In some countries controlled by populist authoritarians where basic freedoms are threatened, maybe, and in some countries there's a party in the historical liberal tradition which makes sense to maintain as a common platform, but in other places in Europe they've just sat within and often on top of the mainstream parties, especially the Catholic countries where the historical liberal tradition had no big demographic under universal suffrage. Ultimately I think the LDs could fold into the Greens and post-Boris Tories and nothing would change.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
From the article it seems that other faiths are completely relaxed
Last night other faith leaders were relaxed about the Christian nature of the ceremony. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former founding Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'It is appropriate the formal ritualistic prayers of the Coronation ought to be Anglican as the King is from the Anglican faith.
'But the presence of other faith leaders will signify the importance that the King represents all the faith communities in the Kingdom.'
Pradip Gajjar, a Hindu leader, said: 'This is a Christian ceremony for a Christian King. I don't see a problem with that.'
The CoE, good love’em (or not) have some serious issues.
A couple of weeks ago there was a video of the Archbishop of Canterbury standing and applauding a man (a judge / KC) who I know not only bullied his son for years but then supported the same son in multiple family court cases involving the son’s abused and intimidated ex wife and her poor daughter, in the slimiest and most duplicitous way possible. As close as we get in civilised middle class British society to pure evil. A brief look at the court records would put this beyond doubt.
Fair enough the Archbishop isn’t expected to review everyone he interacts with, but someone in a litigation role for the CofE. A bit if background checking might be in order.
I was bored and ran a quick monte carlo simulation of this. The purely random option results in a shorter longest interval between elections for a given seat (~2000 weeks for a 650 seat parliament) compared to your weighted scheme (~4000 weeks).
Now, that was after five seconds of coding, so I may have messed up somewhere.
After ten seconds of coding, yes, I did mess up somewhere. It's more than halved, not doubled, with your scheme.
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.
You were a "One Nation Tory" at 9?
PB has to be the ONLY place where this raises neither giggle nor eyebrow.
Which, of course, is why i enjoy it here so much.
Economically, it feels to me, the Tory party is wetter than it has ever been.
I have huge reservations about this.
My entire 'leccy bill over Winter has been paid for by the Govt. Meanwhile I'm taxed through the nose.
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.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
It is not bigoted at all. The coronation is a Christian religious service. How many Mosques would permit a Christian prayer as part of a service in a Mosque?
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 realize there is one small flaw with my plan: it is possible for an MP to avoid the scrutiny of his constituents for a long time if he's very lucky. I would therefore propose that the process for picking which seats have by-elections is modified somewhat:
There is a big hat that is used for the "drawing" of constituencies. Each constituency gets the same number of tickets as weeks since the last by-election there. So, the longer an MP has been since he was last affirmed by the electorate, the more tickets are in the hat*. Therefore, the more likely they will be picked.
* It needn't literally be a hat. But we want something with - you know - some kind of pizzazz. This should be like the FA Cup draw, where everyone tunes in to see where the next elections will be.
Risk it will be like the National Lottery, though.
Start as a Saturday Night Light Entertainment Extravaganza in its own right (sadly Mystic Meg is no longer available), but in a few years it will be flashed on the bottom of the screen during Strictly.
Risk?
What better way to get the electorate engaged than to make the electoral process an ongoing spectacle?
Great to start with- my concern is keeping the sparkle going in the longer term.
Obviously you add a gunge tank in Year 2, but what do you do after that?
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.
Not a split into two parties I mean, but splitting toward viable and more dynamic alternatives like the Greens, for example. After PR it is hard to see the point of the LDs.
Most European countries with PR have a party that's a bit like the liberals and which gets 5-15%: there's D66 in the Netherlands, the FDP (who I grant you are Orange book) in Germany, and you could probably include Citizens in Spain.
This is true, but it seems to me that they're a historical contingency. Most European countries are going to have a party for public sector workers, a party for environmentalists, and a party for racists, because all these groups have distinctive political aims that require working through the political system. It's not clear to me whether upper-middle-class centrists are in a comparable position. In some countries controlled by populist authoritarians where basic freedoms are threatened, maybe, and in some countries there's a party in the historical liberal tradition which makes sense to maintain as a common platform, but in other places in Europe they've just sat within and often on top of the mainstream parties, especially the Catholic countries where the historical liberal tradition had no big demographic under universal suffrage. Ultimately I think the LDs could fold into the Greens and post-Boris Tories and nothing would change.
Historical contingencies: winning here!
No, I think there will always be people whose ideology is formed by an idealised vision of the enlightenment. There will always be liberals (and there are liberals in every society - you can spot them a mile off in authoritarian countries).
Sometimes they incubate in centre left or centre right parties, but they naturally live in a distinct (but minority) liberal party.
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.
It's submit or be killed apparently.
‘Not obsessed’
Not as obsessed as my creepy little stalker.
Ironic use of the word creepy.
This is a public forum. Replying to posts is hardly stalking. No more than four or five in the last few weeks. You clearly have no grasp on what stalking really is what the genuine victims of it go through.
You claimed you were not obsessed by this issue. You clearly are. You challenged me at the time I claimed you were to prove it. I am doing so. Then you cry about it.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
From the article it seems that other faiths are completely relaxed
Last night other faith leaders were relaxed about the Christian nature of the ceremony. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former founding Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'It is appropriate the formal ritualistic prayers of the Coronation ought to be Anglican as the King is from the Anglican faith.
'But the presence of other faith leaders will signify the importance that the King represents all the faith communities in the Kingdom.'
Pradip Gajjar, a Hindu leader, said: 'This is a Christian ceremony for a Christian King. I don't see a problem with that.'
You always know his trolling on this subject is very partial. He tries a bit too hard.
My criticism of Charles is his lack of ownership and confidence in the role, and lack of self-awareness, which people pick up on.
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."
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.
You were a "One Nation Tory" at 9?
PB has to be the ONLY place where this raises neither giggle nor eyebrow.
Which, of course, is why i enjoy it here so much.
Economically, it feels to me, the Tory party is wetter than it has ever been.
I have huge reservations about this.
My entire 'leccy bill over Winter has been paid for by the Govt. Meanwhile I'm taxed through the nose.
Won't someone come out and defend capitalism?
Unfortunately, "capitalism" in this instance consists of oil and gas companies making telephone number profits off the back of the fallout from the destruction of Ukraine, whilst businesses collapse and poorer consumers freeze to death in the Winter because of completely unaffordable fuel bills.
The Government confiscating some of the loot through windfall taxes and subsidising bills is a matter of survival for chunks of both the economy and society. It was the right course of action.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
From the article it seems that other faiths are completely relaxed
Last night other faith leaders were relaxed about the Christian nature of the ceremony. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former founding Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'It is appropriate the formal ritualistic prayers of the Coronation ought to be Anglican as the King is from the Anglican faith.
'But the presence of other faith leaders will signify the importance that the King represents all the faith communities in the Kingdom.'
Pradip Gajjar, a Hindu leader, said: 'This is a Christian ceremony for a Christian King. I don't see a problem with that.'
This is about what the King wants, his woke tendencies are interesting.
It’s utterly bog standard
I went to a wedding 20 years ago
Scion of a devote and prominent catholic family marrying a Jewish man.
Catholic service led by the local Catholic bishop in a Protestant chapel. A Jewish rabbi said the blessing, Anglican bishop did the prayers.
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.
You were a "One Nation Tory" at 9?
PB has to be the ONLY place where this raises neither giggle nor eyebrow.
Which, of course, is why i enjoy it here so much.
Economically, it feels to me, the Tory party is wetter than it has ever been.
I have huge reservations about this.
My entire 'leccy bill over Winter has been paid for by the Govt. Meanwhile I'm taxed through the nose.
Won't someone come out and defend capitalism?
It is ludicrous taxing everyone so heavily that they then require a Government subsidy to pay it. The State making work for itself. Disgraceful that it's happening under a Tory Government.
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.
It's submit or be killed apparently.
‘Not obsessed’
Not as obsessed as my creepy little stalker.
Ironic use of the word creepy.
This is a public forum. Replying to posts is hardly stalking.
You claimed you were not obsessed by this issue. You clearly are.
No, I pointed out that the copious and constant regurgitations of other posters on the subject was obsessive. It obviously touched a nerve in you.
As I pointed out previously, it's a nice irony that someone who bleated constantly about that nasty Ishmael X pursuing his every post is indulging in the same activity, albeit with much, much less wit.
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.
You were a "One Nation Tory" at 9?
PB has to be the ONLY place where this raises neither giggle nor eyebrow.
Which, of course, is why i enjoy it here so much.
Economically, it feels to me, the Tory party is wetter than it has ever been.
I have huge reservations about this.
My entire 'leccy bill over Winter has been paid for by the Govt. Meanwhile I'm taxed through the nose.
Won't someone come out and defend capitalism?
It would seem we can now define the Conservative Party as “the Tories giveth and the Tories taketh away”.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
From the article it seems that other faiths are completely relaxed
Last night other faith leaders were relaxed about the Christian nature of the ceremony. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former founding Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'It is appropriate the formal ritualistic prayers of the Coronation ought to be Anglican as the King is from the Anglican faith.
'But the presence of other faith leaders will signify the importance that the King represents all the faith communities in the Kingdom.'
Pradip Gajjar, a Hindu leader, said: 'This is a Christian ceremony for a Christian King. I don't see a problem with that.'
This is about what the King wants, his woke tendencies are interesting.
Also as the CofE is basically, what the King/Queen want they get, they don't really have any grounds to push back.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
From the article it seems that other faiths are completely relaxed
Last night other faith leaders were relaxed about the Christian nature of the ceremony. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former founding Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'It is appropriate the formal ritualistic prayers of the Coronation ought to be Anglican as the King is from the Anglican faith.
'But the presence of other faith leaders will signify the importance that the King represents all the faith communities in the Kingdom.'
Pradip Gajjar, a Hindu leader, said: 'This is a Christian ceremony for a Christian King. I don't see a problem with that.'
The CoE, good love’em (or not) have some serious issues.
A couple of weeks ago there was a video of the Archbishop of Canterbury standing and applauding a man (a judge / KC) who I know not only bullied his son for years but then supported the same son in multiple family court cases involving the son’s abused and intimidated ex wife and her poor daughter, in the slimiest and most duplicitous way possible. As close as we get in civilised middle class British society to pure evil. A brief look at the court records would put this beyond doubt.
Fair enough the Archbishop isn’t expected to review everyone he interacts with, but someone in a litigation role for the CofE. A bit if background checking might be in order.
I don’t know the case that you refer to. But I very much doubt the Archbishop is involved in selection of CofE lawyers. Sounds like a bureaucratic cock up
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
I thought this was a multi faith board.
It is. But there is nothing wrong with wishing everyone and anyone a happy Easter regardless of whether they celebrate it as a religious holiday or not.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
Since when did you become World King?
You enjoy your Coronation, and I hope you have a great day along with everyone else who wants to have a great day, but don't expect me to participate in your "unifying national event". We had one of those last year, celebrating the life of HMQ and I paid my respects fully.
I can caveat the Coronation for you though, Charles isn't my king.
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.
Not a split into two parties I mean, but splitting toward viable and more dynamic alternatives like the Greens, for example. After PR it is hard to see the point of the LDs.
Most European countries with PR have a party that's a bit like the liberals and which gets 5-15%: there's D66 in the Netherlands, the FDP (who I grant you are Orange book) in Germany, and you could probably include Citizens in Spain.
This is true, but it seems to me that they're a historical contingency. Most European countries are going to have a party for public sector workers, a party for environmentalists, and a party for racists, because all these groups have distinctive political aims that require working through the political system. It's not clear to me whether upper-middle-class centrists are in a comparable position. In some countries controlled by populist authoritarians where basic freedoms are threatened, maybe, and in some countries there's a party in the historical liberal tradition which makes sense to maintain as a common platform, but in other places in Europe they've just sat within and often on top of the mainstream parties, especially the Catholic countries where the historical liberal tradition had no big demographic under universal suffrage. Ultimately I think the LDs could fold into the Greens and post-Boris Tories and nothing would change.
The UK's Greens, though, are very unlike continental Green parties: they're more avowedly anti growth and progress.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
I thought this was a multi faith board.
It is. But there is nothing wrong with wishing everyone and anyone a happy Easter regardless of whether they celebrate it as a religious holiday or not.
I wasn't commenting on Jim's salutation. I questioned Casino's correction.
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.
It's submit or be killed apparently.
‘Not obsessed’
Not as obsessed as my creepy little stalker.
Ironic use of the word creepy.
This is a public forum. Replying to posts is hardly stalking.
You claimed you were not obsessed by this issue. You clearly are.
No, I pointed out that the copious and constant regurgitations of other posters on the subject was obsessive. It obviously touched a nerve in you.
As I pointed out previously, it's a nice irony that someone who bleated constantly about that nasty Ishmael X pursuing his every post is indulging in the same activity, albeit with much, much less wit.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
So Easter is a "national" event?
There ARE a few people in the world - and even on PB! - for who religion is NOT fundamentally a question of narrow nationalism, political ideology and or social control.
Personally favor unity and inclusion - but not as cudgel to beat the likes of Jim over the head & shoulders.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
So Easter is a "national" event?
There ARE a few people in the world - and even on PB! - for who religion is NOT fundamentally a question of narrow nationalism, political ideology and or social control.
Personally favor unity and inclusion - but not as cudgel to beat the likes of Jim over the head & shoulders.
Casino was a bit rude to Jim, and should have just taken his Easter felicitations in the spirit in which they were intended. HOWEVER, his argument is a fair one - we should not be offended by others celebrating their faith and wishing us a 'happy [insert festival here]' - I find it very pleasant to be wished a happy Diwali, Eid, Hannukah etc., even though those festivals have limited significance to me.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
I thought this was a multi faith board.
It is. But there is nothing wrong with wishing everyone and anyone a happy Easter regardless of whether they celebrate it as a religious holiday or not.
I wasn't commenting on Jim's salutation. I questioned Casino's correction.
Jim’s salutation was limited to those who celebrate. Casino applied it to everyone
Emmanuel Macron has been compared to Tony Blair and he certainly shares the former Prime minister's tendency to waste his time trying to charm psychopaths.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
Bigots, the lot of them. What about the pagans, satanists, jedis, scientologists et al? And the atheists. There's more than just the boring bog standard sky fairies you know.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
Since when did you become World King?
You enjoy your Coronation, and I hope you have a great day along with everyone else who wants to have a great day, but don't expect me to participate in your "unifying national event". We had one of those last year, celebrating the life of HMQ and I paid my respects fully.
I can caveat the Coronation for you though, Charles isn't my king.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
So Easter is a "national" event?
There ARE a few people in the world - and even on PB! - for who religion is NOT fundamentally a question of narrow nationalism, political ideology and or social control.
Personally favor unity and inclusion - but not as cudgel to beat the likes of Jim over the head & shoulders.
Casino was a bit rude to Jim, and should have just taken his Easter felicitations in the spirit in which they were intended. HOWEVER, his argument is a fair one - we should not be offended by others celebrating their faith and wishing us a 'happy [insert festival here]' - I find it very pleasant to be wished a happy Diwali, Eid, Hannukah etc., even though those festivals have limited significance to me.
The Church of England really are a bigoted organisation.
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
Bigots, the lot of them. What about the pagans, satanists, jedis, scientologists et al? And the atheists. There's more than just the boring bog standard sky fairies you know.
No need to be so offensive.
What? There are more than the bog standard sky pixies. Loads of gods. We should celebrate them all.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
Since when did you become World King?
You enjoy your Coronation, and I hope you have a great day along with everyone else who wants to have a great day, but don't expect me to participate in your "unifying national event". We had one of those last year, celebrating the life of HMQ and I paid my respects fully.
I can caveat the Coronation for you though, Charles isn't my king.
He is, whether you like it or not.
He can call himself what he wants. We don't have to call him by the title he grants himself. A straight forward Mr Windsor should suffice.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
Since when did you become World King?
You enjoy your Coronation, and I hope you have a great day along with everyone else who wants to have a great day, but don't expect me to participate in your "unifying national event". We had one of those last year, celebrating the life of HMQ and I paid my respects fully.
I can caveat the Coronation for you though, Charles isn't my king.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
Since when did you become World King?
You enjoy your Coronation, and I hope you have a great day along with everyone else who wants to have a great day, but don't expect me to participate in your "unifying national event". We had one of those last year, celebrating the life of HMQ and I paid my respects fully.
I can caveat the Coronation for you though, Charles isn't my king.
He is, whether you like it or not.
He can call himself what he wants. We don't have to call him by the title he grants himself. A straight forward Mr Windsor should suffice.
Nah. Whether you like or not his Coronation means he is the King of the realm... and he didn’t award himself the title. It came by legal right of sucession..
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
Since when did you become World King?
You enjoy your Coronation, and I hope you have a great day along with everyone else who wants to have a great day, but don't expect me to participate in your "unifying national event". We had one of those last year, celebrating the life of HMQ and I paid my respects fully.
I can caveat the Coronation for you though, Charles isn't my king.
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.
Not a split into two parties I mean, but splitting toward viable and more dynamic alternatives like the Greens, for example. After PR it is hard to see the point of the LDs.
Most European countries with PR have a party that's a bit like the liberals and which gets 5-15%: there's D66 in the Netherlands, the FDP (who I grant you are Orange book) in Germany, and you could probably include Citizens in Spain.
This is true, but it seems to me that they're a historical contingency. Most European countries are going to have a party for public sector workers, a party for environmentalists, and a party for racists, because all these groups have distinctive political aims that require working through the political system. It's not clear to me whether upper-middle-class centrists are in a comparable position. In some countries controlled by populist authoritarians where basic freedoms are threatened, maybe, and in some countries there's a party in the historical liberal tradition which makes sense to maintain as a common platform, but in other places in Europe they've just sat within and often on top of the mainstream parties, especially the Catholic countries where the historical liberal tradition had no big demographic under universal suffrage. Ultimately I think the LDs could fold into the Greens and post-Boris Tories and nothing would change.
The UK's Greens, though, are very unlike continental Green parties: they're more avowedly anti growth and progress.
That's true, and the absence of a 1968 student movement that matured over time explains this, imo. Leaving them in arrested development as a Labour Party subsidiary for scuffed kids.
I've done a census of the European liberals and I find three big categories and a tiny one: 1. Upper-middle class parties, economically liberal, pro-EU and opposed to ethnic nationalism, but not necessarily with any particular inclination toward radicalism or civil liberties or even the historical liberal tradition. D66 (NL), NEOS (AT), Civic Choice (IT), Centre (SE). 1a. The above, but more about being pro-EU and pro-national government vis-a-vis the regions. Snippier, with a tendency to want to "own the non-libs". Here the liberal label is a lot more of a fudge, but they are in the same European family. Including at various times En Marche (FR), Ciudadanos (ES), 2. Centre-right parties with affinity to the historical liberal tradition. Often found leading the centre-right in secular countries, where Christianity is feeble as a rival organising principle. Generally more Atlanticist, less explicitly pro-EU, more open to populist and nationalist politics. The closest thing on the Continent to the Tories. Your FDP (DE), VVD (NL), Venstre (DK), Liberal People's Party (SE), ANO (CZ). 3. There must still be a few liberal parties loyal to the historical radical or anti-clerical left while not being actually social democrats. Apart from the Pannella-Bonino Radicals prior to Bonino's formation of +E (see category 1), I can't think of many that didn't end up subsumed in the Green movement with the other pacifists and "radical civil libertarians" (for want of a better term - I mean the people like Bertrand Russell who were never quite anarchists or socialists).
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
Since when did you become World King?
You enjoy your Coronation, and I hope you have a great day along with everyone else who wants to have a great day, but don't expect me to participate in your "unifying national event". We had one of those last year, celebrating the life of HMQ and I paid my respects fully.
I can caveat the Coronation for you though, Charles isn't my king.
He is, whether you like it or not.
He can call himself what he wants. We don't have to call him by the title he grants himself. A straight forward Mr Windsor should suffice.
Nah. Whether you like or not his Coronation means he is the King of the realm... and he didn’t award himself the title. It came by legal right of sucession..
Look, mate, he's got about as much chance of me calling him Sir or King as any other Lord, Sir, Duke or whatever. That's a zero chance. If I met him, which I'm almost certain I never will, he'll get an upward nod and an "Alright, fella?" He's not going to send me to the Tower, is he? And I'm also certain that me calling him "fella" wouldn't bother him one little bit.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
Since when did you become World King?
You enjoy your Coronation, and I hope you have a great day along with everyone else who wants to have a great day, but don't expect me to participate in your "unifying national event". We had one of those last year, celebrating the life of HMQ and I paid my respects fully.
I can caveat the Coronation for you though, Charles isn't my king.
He is, whether you like it or not.
He can call himself what he wants. We don't have to call him by the title he grants himself. A straight forward Mr Windsor should suffice.
Nah. Whether you like or not his Coronation means he is the King of the realm... and he didn’t award himself the title. It came by legal right of sucession..
Look, mate, he's got about as much chance of me calling him Sir or King as any other Lord, Sir, Duke or whatever. That's a zero chance. If I met him, which I'm almost certain I never will, he'll get an upward nod and an "Alright, fella?" He's not going to send me to the Tower, is he? And I'm also certain that me calling him "fella" wouldn't bother him one little bit.
Which part of the country does "fella" come from? Not being sarcastic.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
Since when did you become World King?
You enjoy your Coronation, and I hope you have a great day along with everyone else who wants to have a great day, but don't expect me to participate in your "unifying national event". We had one of those last year, celebrating the life of HMQ and I paid my respects fully.
I can caveat the Coronation for you though, Charles isn't my king.
He is, whether you like it or not.
He can call himself what he wants. We don't have to call him by the title he grants himself. A straight forward Mr Windsor should suffice.
Nah. Whether you like or not his Coronation means he is the King of the realm... and he didn’t award himself the title. It came by legal right of sucession..
Look, mate, he's got about as much chance of me calling him Sir or King as any other Lord, Sir, Duke or whatever. That's a zero chance. If I met him, which I'm almost certain I never will, he'll get an upward nod and an "Alright, fella?" He's not going to send me to the Tower, is he? And I'm also certain that me calling him "fella" wouldn't bother him one little bit.
Which part of the country does "fella" come from? Not being sarcastic.
I dunno. It's used a lot in my part of the East Mids, but so is mate, marra and a few others.
This should have been my first comment today: Happy Easter to all of you who are celebrating it, today.
The last nine words are unnecessary.
Politeness, rather than workery I’d say.
It's like saying Happy Coronation day, to those who are celebrating.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
Since when did you become World King?
You enjoy your Coronation, and I hope you have a great day along with everyone else who wants to have a great day, but don't expect me to participate in your "unifying national event". We had one of those last year, celebrating the life of HMQ and I paid my respects fully.
I can caveat the Coronation for you though, Charles isn't my king.
He is, whether you like it or not.
He can call himself what he wants. We don't have to call him by the title he grants himself. A straight forward Mr Windsor should suffice.
Nah. Whether you like or not his Coronation means he is the King of the realm... and he didn’t award himself the title. It came by legal right of sucession..
My beef is with his Queen. We were promised a Consort to prevent his Edward VII exile to Paris, and bingo he makes Camilla the Queen.
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.
You were a "One Nation Tory" at 9?
PB has to be the ONLY place where this raises neither giggle nor eyebrow.
Which, of course, is why i enjoy it here so much.
Economically, it feels to me, the Tory party is wetter than it has ever been.
I have huge reservations about this.
My entire 'leccy bill over Winter has been paid for by the Govt. Meanwhile I'm taxed through the nose.
Won't someone come out and defend capitalism?
Free market capitalism died when the bankers were bailed out.
It then had a stake driven through its heart when politicians went from being government ministers straight to being the hirelings of shysters and hostile countries.
Its now only about which demographics get which place at the trough.
Comments
Battle of the Hyperboles !!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/09/nicola-sturgeon-campervan-mother-in-law-siezed-snp/
PB has to be the ONLY place where this raises neither giggle nor eyebrow.
I personally think Maastricht was the more consequential Treaty, but it's all a little by the by.
I have the great fortune of an eldest son born instinctively right-on and lefty to his core, and a younger daughter born preternaturally capitalist and Thatcherite. Her comment after watching Titanic: “It was really sad when all the fancy rich people drowned”.
2016 had very long and deep roots.
The nice young lady commented on all the flags of the different countries hanging from windows and how wonderful this was.
I pointed out that the one of flag was that of the ARENA party of El Salvador. Not the party of death squads. but the party of "We don't know anyone in a death squad, but if you give us the name of some lefties, the probability that a death squad will accidentally shoot them is terribly high. Shame that."
For some reason, this revelation upset her.
Personally I thought it a perfect commentary on multi-cultural societies.
There is a big hat that is used for the "drawing" of constituencies. Each constituency gets the same number of tickets as weeks since the last by-election there. So, the longer an MP has been since he was last affirmed by the electorate, the more tickets are in the hat*. Therefore, the more likely they will be picked.
* It needn't literally be a hat. But we want something with - you know - some kind of pizzazz. This should be like the FA Cup draw, where everyone tunes in to see where the next elections will be.
However its our system. It belong to us and if politicians who benefit from a system want to change it then a) they better convince the maority the new system is actually fairer
It was sheer luck of the draw that the Tories didn't go backwards in seats.
What Lisbon did was change the formula on QMV so we no longer had a veto…
Fair play to King Charles III for this.
King Charles has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch has been told that his desire for a 'diverse' ceremony, including participation by non-Christians, risks clashing with centuries- old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers during the service.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster claims today she has been told that this wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation's Order of Service with barely four weeks to go until the ceremony.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11952937/Charles-odds-Church-England-role-faiths-play-Coronation.html
Would the elections be in Government seats, or opposition ones? Safe seats, or marginals?
It would also mean local parties would need to be ready at any time for an election.
I was five at the time, my father was working at a precinct, and my mother let me stay up late with her, listening to the returns on the radio. I don't remember much -- obviously -- but I do remember the announcers sounding surprised, as the results came in.
(Many years later, I recall reading about one of the reasons Gallup got the prediction wrong: corner houses. At that time pollsters sent workers out in person, with directions to question families in specific blocks. Many of the workers chose the first house they came to, which was usually on a corner. And in the US, then and probably now, families in corner houses tend to be wealthier, and there was a sharp difference in voting by wealth in that election.)
One follow-up: In 1952, Adlai Stevenson lost in a landslide to Eisenhower -- but still received more votes than Truman had in 1948. In fact, Stevenson received more votes than the sum of the votes for Truman, Strom Thurmond, and Henry Wallace. (Simplifying a bit, one can say that the Democratic Party had split in three before the 1948 election.)
Start as a Saturday Night Light Entertainment Extravaganza in its own right (sadly Mystic Meg is no longer available), but in a few years it will be flashed on the bottom of the screen during Strictly.
That sounds like they have respect for the law
Ideally they would have figured it out before now, but they just need to change canon law.
I enjoyed it, but it smelt funny. No-one else in my family thought this, only me.
By day 6, the smell had waned a bit - getting used to it, I thought - but I must admit I was glad when I came home and the world smelled normal again.
But today the smell is back. And I am not in Finland.
The only connection between now and then that I can see is that middle daughter has been under the weather. Could this be some covid thing? Could she have had covid then, and also last week (not inconceivable - my wife definitely had it)? And could I also have had it, without noticable symptoms - with the only symptom the world smelling funny? It's really hard to explain the smell, because all I can say is it smells like Finland. But clearly Finland wasn't to blame. (Sorry, Finland.)
Also change the law so that you are allowed to bribe the electorate with alcohol.
Drunk Britain for a Greater Britain!
Last night other faith leaders were relaxed about the Christian nature of the ceremony. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former founding Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'It is appropriate the formal ritualistic prayers of the Coronation ought to be Anglican as the King is from the Anglican faith.
'But the presence of other faith leaders will signify the importance that the King represents all the faith communities in the Kingdom.'
Pradip Gajjar, a Hindu leader, said: 'This is a Christian ceremony for a Christian King. I don't see a problem with that.'
Now, that was after five seconds of coding, so I may have messed up somewhere.
Smell is a funny thing. Today we walked past a patch of pavement that smelled - faintly, but definitively - of drains and fish. It took me straight to the Mediterranean. It was a nasty smell that evoked nice memories.
What better way to get the electorate engaged than to make the electoral process an ongoing spectacle?
A couple of weeks ago there was a video of the Archbishop of Canterbury standing and applauding a man (a judge / KC) who I know not only bullied his son for years but then supported the same son in multiple family court cases involving the son’s abused and intimidated ex wife and her poor daughter, in the slimiest and most duplicitous way possible. As close as we get in civilised middle class British society to pure evil. A brief look at the court records would put this beyond doubt.
Fair enough the Archbishop isn’t expected to review everyone he interacts with, but someone in a litigation role for the CofE. A bit if background checking might be in order.
I have huge reservations about this.
My entire 'leccy bill over Winter has been paid for by the Govt. Meanwhile I'm taxed through the nose.
Won't someone come out and defend capitalism?
Obviously you add a gunge tank in Year 2, but what do you do after that?
No, I think there will always be people whose ideology is formed by an idealised vision of the enlightenment. There will always be liberals (and there are liberals in every society - you can spot them a mile off in authoritarian countries).
Sometimes they incubate in centre left or centre right parties, but they naturally live in a distinct (but minority) liberal party.
This is a public forum. Replying to posts is hardly stalking. No more than four or five in the last few weeks. You clearly have no grasp on what stalking really is what the genuine victims of it go through.
You claimed you were not obsessed by this issue. You clearly are. You challenged me at the time I claimed you were to prove it. I am doing so. Then you cry about it.
My criticism of Charles is his lack of ownership and confidence in the role, and lack of self-awareness, which people pick up on.
It's not a unifying national event or message if you caveat it - so don't.
https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1644994650883649538?s=20
The Government confiscating some of the loot through windfall taxes and subsidising bills is a matter of survival for chunks of both the economy and society. It was the right course of action.
I went to a wedding 20 years ago
Scion of a devote and prominent catholic family marrying a Jewish man.
Catholic service led by the local Catholic bishop in a Protestant chapel. A Jewish rabbi said the blessing, Anglican bishop did the prayers.
Totally and utterly normal.
As I pointed out previously, it's a nice irony that someone who bleated constantly about that nasty Ishmael X pursuing his every post is indulging in the same activity, albeit with much, much less wit.
You enjoy your Coronation, and I hope you have a great day along with everyone else who wants to have a great day, but don't expect me to participate in your "unifying national event". We had one of those last year, celebrating the life of HMQ and I paid my respects fully.
I can caveat the Coronation for you though, Charles isn't my king.
(My favorite local Greek restaturant, Santorini Greek Grill, will celebrate Easter next week, if they follow their usual pattern.)
There ARE a few people in the world - and even on PB! - for who religion is NOT fundamentally a question of narrow nationalism, political ideology and or social control.
Personally favor unity and inclusion - but not as cudgel to beat the likes of Jim over the head & shoulders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGepgWupTw
Emmanuel Macron has been compared to Tony Blair and he certainly shares the former Prime minister's tendency to waste his time trying to charm psychopaths.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-06-22/broadway-cruise-norwegian-gem-laura-benanti-kristin-chenoweth-alan-cumming-ncl
realm... and he didn’t award himself the title. It came by legal right of sucession..
I've done a census of the European liberals and I find three big categories and a tiny one:
1. Upper-middle class parties, economically liberal, pro-EU and opposed to ethnic nationalism, but not necessarily with any particular inclination toward radicalism or civil liberties or even the historical liberal tradition. D66 (NL), NEOS (AT), Civic Choice (IT), Centre (SE).
1a. The above, but more about being pro-EU and pro-national government vis-a-vis the regions. Snippier, with a tendency to want to "own the non-libs". Here the liberal label is a lot more of a fudge, but they are in the same European family. Including at various times En Marche (FR), Ciudadanos (ES),
2. Centre-right parties with affinity to the historical liberal tradition. Often found leading the centre-right in secular countries, where Christianity is feeble as a rival organising principle. Generally more Atlanticist, less explicitly pro-EU, more open to populist and nationalist politics. The closest thing on the Continent to the Tories. Your FDP (DE), VVD (NL), Venstre (DK), Liberal People's Party (SE), ANO (CZ).
3. There must still be a few liberal parties loyal to the historical radical or anti-clerical left while not being actually social democrats. Apart from the Pannella-Bonino Radicals prior to Bonino's formation of +E (see category 1), I can't think of many that didn't end up subsumed in the Green movement with the other pacifists and "radical civil libertarians" (for want of a better term - I mean the people like Bertrand Russell who were never quite anarchists or socialists).
Diana is the Queen of our hearts!
It then had a stake driven through its heart when politicians went from being government ministers straight to being the hirelings of shysters and hostile countries.
Its now only about which demographics get which place at the trough.