Interestingly looking at the gay marriage vote in the Lords a plurality of Tories there supported the bill (by voting against a wrecking amendment at second reading), though as with the Commons there were large numbers who did not vote, and Crossbenchers were pretty evenly divided.
So what? Gay marriage was a socially liberal proposal, it is hardly surprising most Conservative MPs voted against and felt civil unions were enough for homosexual couples. The Conservative Party may now accept homosexual marriage but they were never going to be the ones driving it through.
Socially liberal changes almost always come from Labour governments and the Liberals, free market economic reforms however almost always come from Conservative governments and also from the Liberals
I would be highly surprised if this isn't a storm in a teacup. She shouldn't have done what she did, and in an earlier time should have been sacked. After Johnson's behaviour, why should she go?
I would normally be the last person to defend Braverman, but I am struggling to get past the confected outrage in all this. She had the same choice as potentially all of us, to pay the fine or attend a speed awareness course, she tried to establish whether she could in light of her position attend a speed awareness course alone and after a negative answer came back she then chose to pay the fine. Where's the scandal in that?
I would much rather the Opposition direct their focus elsewhere and only concentrate upon meaningful scandal when it really occurs. Goodness knows there's enough rotten about what this government is doing to the country daily without being sidetracked like this. And the further danger is that we are devaluing some of the appalling real scandals of the Johnson years by equating them as somehow equivalent to this. It's the equivalent of the boy who cried "wolf". When the next really bad scandal occurs and the wolf really is at the door it'll pass us by as just another routine breach of the ministerial code, words that have been reduced to be now almost devoid of meaning.
I can't work this out and who is benefitting from the 'leak' of this story. She is the home secretary. It looks like she needed to ask the civil service for some advice on what to do in light of her situation and she suggested a solution of her own (a 1 to 1 course), and then the civil service didn't want to help, and then leaked the whole thing with some kind of innuendo that she was acting inappropriately or had some kind of improper motivation. I'm not sure who she is supposed to ask for advice if not her own civil servants.
If it was not a ministerial matter I'm not sure why she would ask her civil servants. She could perhaps seek advice from a Spad?
As for innuendo she had some kind of improper motivation, it is hard to figurue out what other kind of motivation there could be in suggesting she get a bespoke solution rather than just taking one of the options any speeding fine letter sets out. Why would it even occur to her to ask if she could do it differently, and why did she think she should?
The innuendo should be that it is a deeply weird response to getting a fine, never mind if it was improper.
It is a ministerial matter though, because she is home secretary. There would be security considerations about her attending a public speed awareness course. It isn't like everyone else when they have to deal with this choice. It just seems to me like routine business and it is very regrettable that it has been spun the way it has.
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed. 2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations. 3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.
It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.
I'd argue, and same to @FF43, that HRC's comments are not just sour grapes but also contributed to the worsening politics in the States. Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate President just gave his supporters the excuse they wanted to up the ante the next time.
With regards to @FF43, I see where yo are coming from but it is splitting hairs - if she is saying publicly he is an illegitimate President, by the nature of her words, she is saying he has no legitimacy and therefore should not be President. It might be phrased in different ways from Trump saying Biden stole the election but it's the same implication - he is President due to illegitimate means.
As I have also argued as well before, a coup can take many forms - it does not have to be just violent, a la 'A Very British Coup'
I don't think it's splitting hairs. There is a material difference between Trump's and Clinton's allegations. Would be a large difference if her assertions are true, which is possible.
But I don't think her comments were wise, precisely because they will be treated in the same way as Trump's. It doesn't do any good.
There is not a material difference. Clinton accused Trump of being an illegitimate President and Trump accused Biden of stealing the election. Both claimed the same thing - the winner should not be President.
Mind you, Clinton was only copying Carter in her comments:
The actions of both are clearly different - including so many bogus lawsuits, pressuring officials to act unlawfully (such as with Pence) and so on, so the argument here is presumably that the issue is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
That could be true, the accusation of illegitimacy was wrong behaviour, but of course differences of degree can be rather significant, like difference between a summer day of 15 degrees and 45 degrees.
There was quite a serious campaign to get the electoral college to overrule the result in 2016.
campaign by whom?
There was an attempt by a couple of Democratic House members to challenge the result at the confirmation hearing that would result in an additional vote and a delay of a few hours. Joe Biden as the outgoing VP knocked it on its head and because no senator was prepared to support it the vote wasn't allowed.
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed. 2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations. 3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.
It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.
I'd argue, and same to @FF43, that HRC's comments are not just sour grapes but also contributed to the worsening politics in the States. Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate President just gave his supporters the excuse they wanted to up the ante the next time.
With regards to @FF43, I see where yo are coming from but it is splitting hairs - if she is saying publicly he is an illegitimate President, by the nature of her words, she is saying he has no legitimacy and therefore should not be President. It might be phrased in different ways from Trump saying Biden stole the election but it's the same implication - he is President due to illegitimate means.
As I have also argued as well before, a coup can take many forms - it does not have to be just violent, a la 'A Very British Coup'
I don't think it's splitting hairs. There is a material difference between Trump's and Clinton's allegations. Would be a large difference if her assertions are true, which is possible.
But I don't think her comments were wise, precisely because they will be treated in the same way as Trump's. It doesn't do any good.
There is not a material difference. Clinton accused Trump of being an illegitimate President and Trump accused Biden of stealing the election. Both claimed the same thing - the winner should not be President.
Mind you, Clinton was only copying Carter in her comments:
The actions of both are clearly different - including so many bogus lawsuits, pressuring officials to act unlawfully (such as with Pence) and so on, so the argument here is presumably that the issue is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
That could be true, the accusation of illegitimacy was wrong behaviour, but of course differences of degree can be rather significant, like difference between a summer day of 15 degrees and 45 degrees.
There was quite a serious campaign to get the electoral college to overrule the result in 2016.
Led by Obama? Or is this a bogus comparison to signal right-wing virtue.
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed. 2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations. 3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.
It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.
I'd argue, and same to @FF43, that HRC's comments are not just sour grapes but also contributed to the worsening politics in the States. Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate President just gave his supporters the excuse they wanted to up the ante the next time.
With regards to @FF43, I see where yo are coming from but it is splitting hairs - if she is saying publicly he is an illegitimate President, by the nature of her words, she is saying he has no legitimacy and therefore should not be President. It might be phrased in different ways from Trump saying Biden stole the election but it's the same implication - he is President due to illegitimate means.
As I have also argued as well before, a coup can take many forms - it does not have to be just violent, a la 'A Very British Coup'
I don't think it's splitting hairs. There is a material difference between Trump's and Clinton's allegations. Would be a large difference if her assertions are true, which is possible.
But I don't think her comments were wise, precisely because they will be treated in the same way as Trump's. It doesn't do any good.
There is not a material difference. Clinton accused Trump of being an illegitimate President and Trump accused Biden of stealing the election. Both claimed the same thing - the winner should not be President.
Mind you, Clinton was only copying Carter in her comments:
The actions of both are clearly different - including so many bogus lawsuits, pressuring officials to act unlawfully (such as with Pence) and so on, so the argument here is presumably that the issue is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
That could be true, the accusation of illegitimacy was wrong behaviour, but of course differences of degree can be rather significant, like difference between a summer day of 15 degrees and 45 degrees.
There was quite a serious campaign to get the electoral college to overrule the result in 2016.
No there wasn't. There was a clear and prompt concession from the loser and the outgoing administration offered full cooperation with the transition.
Though some Dem representatives objected to the 2004 result.
A Republican presidential elector has become the first to announce that he intends to defect from Donald Trump when he casts his vote as part of the electoral college, vowing to try and block the president-elect from reaching the White House.
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed. 2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations. 3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.
It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.
I'd argue, and same to @FF43, that HRC's comments are not just sour grapes but also contributed to the worsening politics in the States. Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate President just gave his supporters the excuse they wanted to up the ante the next time.
With regards to @FF43, I see where yo are coming from but it is splitting hairs - if she is saying publicly he is an illegitimate President, by the nature of her words, she is saying he has no legitimacy and therefore should not be President. It might be phrased in different ways from Trump saying Biden stole the election but it's the same implication - he is President due to illegitimate means.
As I have also argued as well before, a coup can take many forms - it does not have to be just violent, a la 'A Very British Coup'
I don't think it's splitting hairs. There is a material difference between Trump's and Clinton's allegations. Would be a large difference if her assertions are true, which is possible.
But I don't think her comments were wise, precisely because they will be treated in the same way as Trump's. It doesn't do any good.
There is not a material difference. Clinton accused Trump of being an illegitimate President and Trump accused Biden of stealing the election. Both claimed the same thing - the winner should not be President.
Mind you, Clinton was only copying Carter in her comments:
The actions of both are clearly different - including so many bogus lawsuits, pressuring officials to act unlawfully (such as with Pence) and so on, so the argument here is presumably that the issue is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
That could be true, the accusation of illegitimacy was wrong behaviour, but of course differences of degree can be rather significant, like difference between a summer day of 15 degrees and 45 degrees.
There was quite a serious campaign to get the electoral college to overrule the result in 2016.
Led by Obama? Or is this a bogus comparison to signal right-wing virtue.
Remember Trump first entered politics with his smears about Obama's father. Right-wing virtue is becoming increasingly an oxymoron.
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
A Republican presidential elector has become the first to announce that he intends to defect from Donald Trump when he casts his vote as part of the electoral college, vowing to try and block the president-elect from reaching the White House.
Faithless electors have been a thing since the first elections
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed. 2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations. 3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.
It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.
I'd argue, and same to @FF43, that HRC's comments are not just sour grapes but also contributed to the worsening politics in the States. Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate President just gave his supporters the excuse they wanted to up the ante the next time.
With regards to @FF43, I see where yo are coming from but it is splitting hairs - if she is saying publicly he is an illegitimate President, by the nature of her words, she is saying he has no legitimacy and therefore should not be President. It might be phrased in different ways from Trump saying Biden stole the election but it's the same implication - he is President due to illegitimate means.
As I have also argued as well before, a coup can take many forms - it does not have to be just violent, a la 'A Very British Coup'
I don't think it's splitting hairs. There is a material difference between Trump's and Clinton's allegations. Would be a large difference if her assertions are true, which is possible.
But I don't think her comments were wise, precisely because they will be treated in the same way as Trump's. It doesn't do any good.
There is not a material difference. Clinton accused Trump of being an illegitimate President and Trump accused Biden of stealing the election. Both claimed the same thing - the winner should not be President.
Mind you, Clinton was only copying Carter in her comments:
The actions of both are clearly different - including so many bogus lawsuits, pressuring officials to act unlawfully (such as with Pence) and so on, so the argument here is presumably that the issue is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
That could be true, the accusation of illegitimacy was wrong behaviour, but of course differences of degree can be rather significant, like difference between a summer day of 15 degrees and 45 degrees.
There was quite a serious campaign to get the electoral college to overrule the result in 2016.
Led by Obama? Or is this a bogus comparison to signal right-wing virtue.
Remember Trump first entered politics with his smears about Obama's father. Right-wing virtue is becoming increasingly an oxymoron.
I know a bunch of US Republicans with a range of views about Trump, but it takes some nerve to effortfully argue on his behalf from overseas on an overseas blog. My view is like, was it when he praised the people attacking black churches that made you think this Yankee president is worth defending?
At least Labour did some stuff, the Tories have done bugger all.
Brexit was hardly bugger all, it was probably the biggest change in Britain's foreign policy since WW2. Nor was universal credit, free schools, reducing the levels of unemployment Labour left in 2010, taking the lowest earners out of income tax etc
Brexit has been a disaster.
Universal credit has been a disaster.
Free schools have been a disaster.
Unemployment is nominally reduced but more people than ever are IN WORK and claiming benefits.
Taking lowest earners out of tax, was a Lib Dem policy!
Perhaps you could to define what you mean by 'disaster'.
And normally you're all in favour of more benefits.
I don't believe you should have to claim benefits when working, what a laughably embarrassing point from you. Poor form.
Two objections to the TSE-Gove line. First, short of compulsory labour and exercise Soviet-style, it's impossible to see what politicians can do about the economy or public health in two years. So the most prominent issue they can do something about is immigration. Second, you often find that people answer differently when asked what issues they think are nationally important versus personally important.
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed. 2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations. 3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.
It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.
I'd argue, and same to @FF43, that HRC's comments are not just sour grapes but also contributed to the worsening politics in the States. Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate President just gave his supporters the excuse they wanted to up the ante the next time.
With regards to @FF43, I see where yo are coming from but it is splitting hairs - if she is saying publicly he is an illegitimate President, by the nature of her words, she is saying he has no legitimacy and therefore should not be President. It might be phrased in different ways from Trump saying Biden stole the election but it's the same implication - he is President due to illegitimate means.
As I have also argued as well before, a coup can take many forms - it does not have to be just violent, a la 'A Very British Coup'
I don't think it's splitting hairs. There is a material difference between Trump's and Clinton's allegations. Would be a large difference if her assertions are true, which is possible.
But I don't think her comments were wise, precisely because they will be treated in the same way as Trump's. It doesn't do any good.
There is not a material difference. Clinton accused Trump of being an illegitimate President and Trump accused Biden of stealing the election. Both claimed the same thing - the winner should not be President.
Mind you, Clinton was only copying Carter in her comments:
The actions of both are clearly different - including so many bogus lawsuits, pressuring officials to act unlawfully (such as with Pence) and so on, so the argument here is presumably that the issue is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
That could be true, the accusation of illegitimacy was wrong behaviour, but of course differences of degree can be rather significant, like difference between a summer day of 15 degrees and 45 degrees.
There was quite a serious campaign to get the electoral college to overrule the result in 2016.
No there wasn't. There was a clear and prompt concession from the loser and the outgoing administration offered full cooperation with the transition.
Though some Dem representatives objected to the 2004 result.
It just confirmed to me how wrong I was and why I have moved back to my natural centre-left home.
It is incredibly depressing that John McDonnell, who understood how damaging Salisbury was, was cast aside.
Yes, I had and still have some time for McDonnell. He is at least a pragmatist. I note that he has broken with Corbyn over the latter's tankie stance on Ukraine.
I had not realised until recently that McDonnell came in as an MP in 1997, so despite being of an age witrh Corbyn he has been an MP for 14 years less.
I don't know what he did prior to becoming an MP (I'm sure he was involved in politics), but on seeing the difference in when they were first elected I did wonder if coming of political age in the Blair era contributed a lot to John being slicker, more professional, despite sharing a lot of the same politics, rather than being stewed in the politics of the early to mid 80s..
Similar age to Nick Palmer as well, who was also first elected in 1997.
Most political careers are affected by where and when someone becomes a candidate.
At least Labour did some stuff, the Tories have done bugger all.
Brexit was hardly bugger all, it was probably the biggest change in Britain's foreign policy since WW2. Nor was universal credit, free schools, reducing the levels of unemployment Labour left in 2010, taking the lowest earners out of income tax etc
Brexit has been a disaster.
Universal credit has been a disaster.
Free schools have been a disaster.
Unemployment is nominally reduced but more people than ever are IN WORK and claiming benefits.
Taking lowest earners out of tax, was a Lib Dem policy!
It has reduced immigration from the EU at least and regained some sovereignty which is what those voted for it for.
Universal credit has ensured it always pays more to work, no matter how few hours, than stay on benefits full time.
Free schools have like Birbalsingh's have been a triumph, offering more choice to parents, strong disciplne and excellent exam results and top university entrance.
In 2010 Labour unemployment was 8% when Brown left office, it is now 4%.
It was a Tory led government that took the lowest earners out of tax, even if the LDs also took credit for it
Wut, they literally opposed the policy
If a policy was brought in during the coalition then both parties are entitled to claim credit, regardless of who came up with it first or opposed it initially - whatever their initial stances they hashed out an agreement and delivered together.
Do we give no credit to any party backing the gay marriage vote for example because the past position of the party may have been different?
I give no credit at all to the Conservative party for equal marriage because they voted against it. Credit given to those Conservatives who voted for it, of course. But given they were outnumbered by their party colleagues to opposed it, the Conservatives can absolutely get to fuck on that issue.
You've missed my point - there had not been gay marriage before, including during the entirety of the previous Labour administration, so I presume that at least the big two parties both opposed the idea prior to that point, in very recent memory in fact. So there was a change in position, and a very welcome one.
Yet the argument that the Tories cannot claim credit for a coalition policy because prior to the coalition they opposed that policy is to me exactly the same as claiming no party can take claim credit for supporting the gay marriage vote, even if they did so unanimously (wiki tells us that in fact 14 Labour and 4 LDs voted against it, obviously far smaller proportions that the Tories), because they literally opposed it previously. By the same logic Labour, who overwhelmingly backed the vote, should get no credit because they literally used to oppose it, at least by never approving it when they had the chance.
Ultimately if the parties in a coalition came together in support of a policy then I think it is fair game for them to jostle for credit for who came up with the idea first, but I have always found it slightly ridiculous that some LDs in particular think it is unfair for the Tories to claim credit for it. They all voted for those things, and the other side may well have changed their minds upon seeing it works.
The argument seems to be that if a party agrees to do something begrudgingly at first it doesn't count, but that's nonsense. The gay marriage vote is on stronger grounds in that a plurality of Tory MPs did not back it, but that won't have been true for most coalition policies.
I don't really care whether LDs think it's unfair or not. What matters more is knowing what you're dealing with. The Conservative Party, as at 2013 was still on balance homophobic. The idea that it should claim credit for something that it opposed tends to mislead. The LDs and Labour were, on balance, in favour of correcting the injustice.
I don't much care about arguments that say "aha, but why didn't Labour fix this when they were in power!" unless they are directed against some kind of claim that Labour were always in favour of this. I would object to such claims on the same grounds that I object to the Tories taking credit for the 2013 vote. When your actions show you to be one thing, don't try to pretend you're the other thing. If you find these claims in the wild, let me know and I'll surely take the same line as I do against the Tories taking credit wrongly for something that they, acting alone, would have denied us.
I think the point has been distracted by my using the gay marriage vote as an example of a change in position, which was chosen at random and perhaps not the best example because on that occasion the Tories were severely divide.
The less dramatic point was about issues of tax thresholds and similar, and how parties change their position and it makes no sense to claim they cannot claim credit for things they do nowon the basis they used to hold a different position, since that is most policies governments enact, given enough time. Yet that is what is being argued when people try to argue coalition policy X only one party can claim credit for.
I say that not because I am judging the party as being good or not, but because I am a fan in principle of coalitions, and I think to work they have to take good and bad together - they work up a programme and share the credit and blame. Whether they opposed generic policy X prior is pretty irrelevant if they then trudged through the lobbies to vote for policy X - people benefiting from a policy don't care if it was the result of a political deal.
I would be highly surprised if this isn't a storm in a teacup. She shouldn't have done what she did, and in an earlier time should have been sacked. After Johnson's behaviour, why should she go?
I would normally be the last person to defend Braverman, but I am struggling to get past the confected outrage in all this. She had the same choice as potentially all of us, to pay the fine or attend a speed awareness course, she tried to establish whether she could in light of her position attend a speed awareness course alone and after a negative answer came back she then chose to pay the fine. Where's the scandal in that?
I would much rather the Opposition direct their focus elsewhere and only concentrate upon meaningful scandal when it really occurs. Goodness knows there's enough rotten about what this government is doing to the country daily without being sidetracked like this. And the further danger is that we are devaluing some of the appalling real scandals of the Johnson years by equating them as somehow equivalent to this. It's the equivalent of the boy who cried "wolf". When the next really bad scandal occurs and the wolf really is at the door it'll pass us by as just another routine breach of the ministerial code, words that have been reduced to be now almost devoid of meaning.
I can't work this out and who is benefitting from the 'leak' of this story. She is the home secretary. It looks like she needed to ask the civil service for some advice on what to do in light of her situation and she suggested a solution of her own (a 1 to 1 course), and then the civil service didn't want to help, and then leaked the whole thing with some kind of innuendo that she was acting inappropriately or had some kind of improper motivation. I'm not sure who she is supposed to ask for advice if not her own civil servants.
If it was not a ministerial matter I'm not sure why she would ask her civil servants. She could perhaps seek advice from a Spad?
As for innuendo she had some kind of improper motivation, it is hard to figurue out what other kind of motivation there could be in suggesting she get a bespoke solution rather than just taking one of the options any speeding fine letter sets out. Why would it even occur to her to ask if she could do it differently, and why did she think she should?
The innuendo should be that it is a deeply weird response to getting a fine, never mind if it was improper.
It is a ministerial matter though, because she is home secretary. There would be security considerations about her attending a public speed awareness course. It isn't like everyone else when they have to deal with this choice. It just seems to me like routine business and it is very regrettable that it has been spun the way it has.
No, mate. That's utter rubbish. Give that they're often online, and even in person it's hardly rocket science to say send cop with her if you're really worried about some random person sat in the same classroom for 2 hours being an axe murderer. Security concerns, my arse.
I've read the reports on this and I still don't see what was 'improper' about her trying to set up her own 1 person speed awareness course. It seems completely trivial and not even wrong in my mind. If it was against the rules then the civil servants should have told her, not going through a process of 'reporting' the incident to the cabinet office and then leaking it to the press. We definetely don't need another timewasting inquiry about this.
I would be highly surprised if this isn't a storm in a teacup. She shouldn't have done what she did, and in an earlier time should have been sacked. After Johnson's behaviour, why should she go?
I would normally be the last person to defend Braverman, but I am struggling to get past the confected outrage in all this. She had the same choice as potentially all of us, to pay the fine or attend a speed awareness course, she tried to establish whether she could in light of her position attend a speed awareness course alone and after a negative answer came back she then chose to pay the fine. Where's the scandal in that?
I would much rather the Opposition direct their focus elsewhere and only concentrate upon meaningful scandal when it really occurs. Goodness knows there's enough rotten about what this government is doing to the country daily without being sidetracked like this. And the further danger is that we are devaluing some of the appalling real scandals of the Johnson years by equating them as somehow equivalent to this. It's the equivalent of the boy who cried "wolf". When the next really bad scandal occurs and the wolf really is at the door it'll pass us by as just another routine breach of the ministerial code, words that have been reduced to be now almost devoid of meaning.
I can't work this out and who is benefitting from the 'leak' of this story. She is the home secretary. It looks like she needed to ask the civil service for some advice on what to do in light of her situation and she suggested a solution of her own (a 1 to 1 course), and then the civil service didn't want to help, and then leaked the whole thing with some kind of innuendo that she was acting inappropriately or had some kind of improper motivation. I'm not sure who she is supposed to ask for advice if not her own civil servants.
If it was not a ministerial matter I'm not sure why she would ask her civil servants. She could perhaps seek advice from a Spad?
As for innuendo she had some kind of improper motivation, it is hard to figurue out what other kind of motivation there could be in suggesting she get a bespoke solution rather than just taking one of the options any speeding fine letter sets out. Why would it even occur to her to ask if she could do it differently, and why did she think she should?
The innuendo should be that it is a deeply weird response to getting a fine, never mind if it was improper.
It is a ministerial matter though, because she is home secretary. There would be security considerations about her attending a public speed awareness course. It isn't like everyone else when they have to deal with this choice. It just seems to me like routine business and it is very regrettable that it has been spun the way it has.
That's just nonsense I'm afraid. MPs and Ministers do not stop being private citizens when they take up office - not everything they do is indelibly linked with their role. That's why they have to be clear if they are acting in official capacity or not, it's why MPs are for example not allowed to send some things on Commons letterhead, because people do not always act in one particular capacity. Not everything a Minister does in ministerial - when they speak at the Dispatch Box they cannot say the same things as at National Conservative conference, because on one they are on official business whereas the other is a personal or party matter. Even if invited because of their role, they would not be speaking with the weight of the office at that moment.
What, precisely, is the security consideration about attending a public speed awareness course? Am I to believe Cabinet Ministers never attend public events. If she has ever appeared at a public event whilst a minister your argument falls flat on its face, since it means she could attend a public speed awareness course.
They're not even all in person.
From the reports I think she has probably stayed on the right side of the line, but the idea a Cabinet Minister cannot attend to the personal matter of a minor speeding infraction without it being a 'ministerial' matter is one of the barmiest things I've read in ages. Is there no separation between the individual and the office anymore?
At least Labour did some stuff, the Tories have done bugger all.
Brexit was hardly bugger all, it was probably the biggest change in Britain's foreign policy since WW2. Nor was universal credit, free schools, reducing the levels of unemployment Labour left in 2010, taking the lowest earners out of income tax etc
Brexit has been a disaster.
Universal credit has been a disaster.
Free schools have been a disaster.
Unemployment is nominally reduced but more people than ever are IN WORK and claiming benefits.
Taking lowest earners out of tax, was a Lib Dem policy!
Perhaps you could to define what you mean by 'disaster'.
And normally you're all in favour of more benefits.
I don't believe you should have to claim benefits when working, what a laughably embarrassing point from you. Poor form.
So what are you suggesting ?
To make workers ineligible for benefits ?
Or to increase pay levels so that workers earn too much to be eligible for benefits ?
You need to deal with the practicalities of the world instead of screaming 'disaster' about everything.
I would be highly surprised if this isn't a storm in a teacup. She shouldn't have done what she did, and in an earlier time should have been sacked. After Johnson's behaviour, why should she go?
I would normally be the last person to defend Braverman, but I am struggling to get past the confected outrage in all this. She had the same choice as potentially all of us, to pay the fine or attend a speed awareness course, she tried to establish whether she could in light of her position attend a speed awareness course alone and after a negative answer came back she then chose to pay the fine. Where's the scandal in that?
I would much rather the Opposition direct their focus elsewhere and only concentrate upon meaningful scandal when it really occurs. Goodness knows there's enough rotten about what this government is doing to the country daily without being sidetracked like this. And the further danger is that we are devaluing some of the appalling real scandals of the Johnson years by equating them as somehow equivalent to this. It's the equivalent of the boy who cried "wolf". When the next really bad scandal occurs and the wolf really is at the door it'll pass us by as just another routine breach of the ministerial code, words that have been reduced to be now almost devoid of meaning.
I can't work this out and who is benefitting from the 'leak' of this story. She is the home secretary. It looks like she needed to ask the civil service for some advice on what to do in light of her situation and she suggested a solution of her own (a 1 to 1 course), and then the civil service didn't want to help, and then leaked the whole thing with some kind of innuendo that she was acting inappropriately or had some kind of improper motivation. I'm not sure who she is supposed to ask for advice if not her own civil servants.
If it was not a ministerial matter I'm not sure why she would ask her civil servants. She could perhaps seek advice from a Spad?
As for innuendo she had some kind of improper motivation, it is hard to figurue out what other kind of motivation there could be in suggesting she get a bespoke solution rather than just taking one of the options any speeding fine letter sets out. Why would it even occur to her to ask if she could do it differently, and why did she think she should?
The innuendo should be that it is a deeply weird response to getting a fine, never mind if it was improper.
It is a ministerial matter though, because she is home secretary. There would be security considerations about her attending a public speed awareness course. It isn't like everyone else when they have to deal with this choice. It just seems to me like routine business and it is very regrettable that it has been spun the way it has.
That's just nonsense I'm afraid. MPs and Ministers do not stop being private citizens when they take up office - not everything they do is indelibly linked with their role. That's why they have to be clear if they are acting in official capacity or not, it's why MPs are for example not allowed to send some things on Commons letterhead, because people do not always act in one particular capacity. Not everything a Minister does in ministerial - when they speak at the Dispatch Box they cannot say the same things as at National Conservative conference, because on one they are on official business whereas the other is a personal or party matter. Even if invited because of their role, they would not be speaking with the weight of the office at that moment.
What, precisely, is the security consideration about attending a public speed awareness course? Am I to believe Cabinet Ministers never attend public events. If she has ever appeared at a public event whilst a minister your argument falls flat on its face, since it means she could attend a public speed awareness course.
They're not even all in person.
The Home Secretary is different in terms of security arrangements. But fair enough, she could probably have done an online course without security problems.
My point was really that this shouldn't be a scandal, because what she was trying to do was reasonable from her perspective. Someone should have just told her not to do it and that should have been the end of that. It has been blown up in to a 'scandal' by people who hate her, whilst her supporters will just see it all as part of a conspiracy against her. It is just a largely pointless and predictable cycle of reaction.
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed. 2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations. 3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.
It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.
I'd argue, and same to @FF43, that HRC's comments are not just sour grapes but also contributed to the worsening politics in the States. Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate President just gave his supporters the excuse they wanted to up the ante the next time.
With regards to @FF43, I see where yo are coming from but it is splitting hairs - if she is saying publicly he is an illegitimate President, by the nature of her words, she is saying he has no legitimacy and therefore should not be President. It might be phrased in different ways from Trump saying Biden stole the election but it's the same implication - he is President due to illegitimate means.
As I have also argued as well before, a coup can take many forms - it does not have to be just violent, a la 'A Very British Coup'
I don't think it's splitting hairs. There is a material difference between Trump's and Clinton's allegations. Would be a large difference if her assertions are true, which is possible.
But I don't think her comments were wise, precisely because they will be treated in the same way as Trump's. It doesn't do any good.
There is not a material difference. Clinton accused Trump of being an illegitimate President and Trump accused Biden of stealing the election. Both claimed the same thing - the winner should not be President.
Mind you, Clinton was only copying Carter in her comments:
The actions of both are clearly different - including so many bogus lawsuits, pressuring officials to act unlawfully (such as with Pence) and so on, so the argument here is presumably that the issue is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
That could be true, the accusation of illegitimacy was wrong behaviour, but of course differences of degree can be rather significant, like difference between a summer day of 15 degrees and 45 degrees.
There was quite a serious campaign to get the electoral college to overrule the result in 2016.
No there wasn't. There was a clear and prompt concession from the loser and the outgoing administration offered full cooperation with the transition.
Though some Dem representatives objected to the 2004 result.
I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.
We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.
The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos. Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems. I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.
For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.
A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
Exactly. It serves the parties well to maintain the lie that they are the recipient of the votes. Stop those MPs getting to uppity with all that democracy bollocks.
But it's exactly what's in the minds of most voters when they cast their ballot. The parties claiming them as a mandate for the party and its manifesto is an honest reflection of the intentions of the voters.
Well the first of those is simply wrong. And that is because the parties maintain that fiction. And the second is a joke. We already know from court cases that the manifesto has absolutely no legal standing and from political reality that the parties will ditch anything they really didn't want as soon as they are actually elected. Of course coalition just gives them the political cover to do it in the name of forming 'stable Government'.
Anyone using the excuse that people 'think' they are voting for a party as justification are simply indulging in the political equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.
I don't know why you're raising the legal standing of manifestos. That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is what's happening in the minds of voters. Manifestos have political heft. Party's have political heft. People respond to the history and traditions of a party as much as (more) the person in the suit who's standing this time around. I think we all know this to be true. I think it's a little insulting to those in the electorate who want to vote for a party and don't care to scrutinise the individual to call it Stockholm Syndrome. It's perfectly fine if that's the lens people want to see politics through.
No its not fine. Because ot is not reality. They are fooling themselves. And from that then derives the ida that the parties somehow own the votes of the MPs and can do with them what they will. And the idea that MPs should stand for reelection if they leave a party. Both are simply wrong but are arguments perpetuated by those who wish to keep the public believing the myth that they are voting for a party not an individual MP.
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed. 2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations. 3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.
It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.
I'd argue, and same to @FF43, that HRC's comments are not just sour grapes but also contributed to the worsening politics in the States. Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate President just gave his supporters the excuse they wanted to up the ante the next time.
With regards to @FF43, I see where yo are coming from but it is splitting hairs - if she is saying publicly he is an illegitimate President, by the nature of her words, she is saying he has no legitimacy and therefore should not be President. It might be phrased in different ways from Trump saying Biden stole the election but it's the same implication - he is President due to illegitimate means.
As I have also argued as well before, a coup can take many forms - it does not have to be just violent, a la 'A Very British Coup'
I don't think it's splitting hairs. There is a material difference between Trump's and Clinton's allegations. Would be a large difference if her assertions are true, which is possible.
But I don't think her comments were wise, precisely because they will be treated in the same way as Trump's. It doesn't do any good.
There is not a material difference. Clinton accused Trump of being an illegitimate President and Trump accused Biden of stealing the election. Both claimed the same thing - the winner should not be President.
Mind you, Clinton was only copying Carter in her comments:
The actions of both are clearly different - including so many bogus lawsuits, pressuring officials to act unlawfully (such as with Pence) and so on, so the argument here is presumably that the issue is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
That could be true, the accusation of illegitimacy was wrong behaviour, but of course differences of degree can be rather significant, like difference between a summer day of 15 degrees and 45 degrees.
There was quite a serious campaign to get the electoral college to overrule the result in 2016.
campaign by whom?
Saturday Night Live. Kate McKinnon did a "Love Actually" spoof. It was harsh. Harsh, I tell ye!
A Republican presidential elector has become the first to announce that he intends to defect from Donald Trump when he casts his vote as part of the electoral college, vowing to try and block the president-elect from reaching the White House.
A large group of Hollywood actors and others endorsed faithless electors in 2016 in a video led by Martin Sheen:
Worth sitting through the advert to see how awful this was. Of course, exactly the same kind of person was aghast at the idea of faithless electors in 2020.
I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.
We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.
The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos. Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems. I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.
For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.
A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
Exactly. It serves the parties well to maintain the lie that they are the recipient of the votes. Stop those MPs getting to uppity with all that democracy bollocks.
But it's exactly what's in the minds of most voters when they cast their ballot. The parties claiming them as a mandate for the party and its manifesto is an honest reflection of the intentions of the voters.
Well the first of those is simply wrong. And that is because the parties maintain that fiction. And the second is a joke. We already know from court cases that the manifesto has absolutely no legal standing and from political reality that the parties will ditch anything they really didn't want as soon as they are actually elected. Of course coalition just gives them the political cover to do it in the name of forming 'stable Government'.
Anyone using the excuse that people 'think' they are voting for a party as justification are simply indulging in the political equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.
I don't know why you're raising the legal standing of manifestos. That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is what's happening in the minds of voters. Manifestos have political heft. Party's have political heft. People respond to the history and traditions of a party as much as (more) the person in the suit who's standing this time around. I think we all know this to be true. I think it's a little insulting to those in the electorate who want to vote for a party and don't care to scrutinise the individual to call it Stockholm Syndrome. It's perfectly fine if that's the lens people want to see politics through.
No its not fine. Because ot is not reality. They are fooling themselves. And from that then derives the ida that the parties somehow own the votes of the MPs and can do with them what they will. And the idea that MPs should stand for reelection if they leave a party. Both are simply wrong but are arguments perpetuated by those who wish to keep the public believing the myth that they are voting for a party not an individual MP.
You are elevating form over substance rather than substance over form. It's not wrong as such but it's more wrong than right.
A Republican presidential elector has become the first to announce that he intends to defect from Donald Trump when he casts his vote as part of the electoral college, vowing to try and block the president-elect from reaching the White House.
A large group of Hollywood actors and others endorsed faithless electors in 2016 in a video led by Martin Sheen:
Worth sitting through the advert to see how awful this was. Of course, exactly the same kind of person was aghast at the idea of faithless electors in 2020.
Makes the brexit-reversers look positively mild.
Did they understand that the election would then be decided by the state delegations in the House of Representatives where the GOP had a 32-18 advantage ?
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed. 2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations. 3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.
It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.
I'd argue, and same to @FF43, that HRC's comments are not just sour grapes but also contributed to the worsening politics in the States. Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate President just gave his supporters the excuse they wanted to up the ante the next time.
With regards to @FF43, I see where yo are coming from but it is splitting hairs - if she is saying publicly he is an illegitimate President, by the nature of her words, she is saying he has no legitimacy and therefore should not be President. It might be phrased in different ways from Trump saying Biden stole the election but it's the same implication - he is President due to illegitimate means.
As I have also argued as well before, a coup can take many forms - it does not have to be just violent, a la 'A Very British Coup'
I don't think it's splitting hairs. There is a material difference between Trump's and Clinton's allegations. Would be a large difference if her assertions are true, which is possible.
But I don't think her comments were wise, precisely because they will be treated in the same way as Trump's. It doesn't do any good.
There is not a material difference. Clinton accused Trump of being an illegitimate President and Trump accused Biden of stealing the election. Both claimed the same thing - the winner should not be President.
Mind you, Clinton was only copying Carter in her comments:
The actions of both are clearly different - including so many bogus lawsuits, pressuring officials to act unlawfully (such as with Pence) and so on, so the argument here is presumably that the issue is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
That could be true, the accusation of illegitimacy was wrong behaviour, but of course differences of degree can be rather significant, like difference between a summer day of 15 degrees and 45 degrees.
There was quite a serious campaign to get the electoral college to overrule the result in 2016.
No there wasn't. There was a clear and prompt concession from the loser and the outgoing administration offered full cooperation with the transition.
Though some Dem representatives objected to the 2004 result.
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed. 2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations. 3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.
It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.
I'd argue, and same to @FF43, that HRC's comments are not just sour grapes but also contributed to the worsening politics in the States. Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate President just gave his supporters the excuse they wanted to up the ante the next time.
With regards to @FF43, I see where yo are coming from but it is splitting hairs - if she is saying publicly he is an illegitimate President, by the nature of her words, she is saying he has no legitimacy and therefore should not be President. It might be phrased in different ways from Trump saying Biden stole the election but it's the same implication - he is President due to illegitimate means.
As I have also argued as well before, a coup can take many forms - it does not have to be just violent, a la 'A Very British Coup'
I don't think it's splitting hairs. There is a material difference between Trump's and Clinton's allegations. Would be a large difference if her assertions are true, which is possible.
But I don't think her comments were wise, precisely because they will be treated in the same way as Trump's. It doesn't do any good.
There is not a material difference. Clinton accused Trump of being an illegitimate President and Trump accused Biden of stealing the election. Both claimed the same thing - the winner should not be President.
Mind you, Clinton was only copying Carter in her comments:
The actions of both are clearly different - including so many bogus lawsuits, pressuring officials to act unlawfully (such as with Pence) and so on, so the argument here is presumably that the issue is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
That could be true, the accusation of illegitimacy was wrong behaviour, but of course differences of degree can be rather significant, like difference between a summer day of 15 degrees and 45 degrees.
There was quite a serious campaign to get the electoral college to overrule the result in 2016.
No there wasn't. There was a clear and prompt concession from the loser and the outgoing administration offered full cooperation with the transition.
Though some Dem representatives objected to the 2004 result.
I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.
We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.
The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos. Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems. I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.
For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.
A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
Exactly. It serves the parties well to maintain the lie that they are the recipient of the votes. Stop those MPs getting to uppity with all that democracy bollocks.
But it's exactly what's in the minds of most voters when they cast their ballot. The parties claiming them as a mandate for the party and its manifesto is an honest reflection of the intentions of the voters.
Well the first of those is simply wrong. And that is because the parties maintain that fiction. And the second is a joke. We already know from court cases that the manifesto has absolutely no legal standing and from political reality that the parties will ditch anything they really didn't want as soon as they are actually elected. Of course coalition just gives them the political cover to do it in the name of forming 'stable Government'.
Anyone using the excuse that people 'think' they are voting for a party as justification are simply indulging in the political equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.
I don't know why you're raising the legal standing of manifestos. That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is what's happening in the minds of voters. Manifestos have political heft. Party's have political heft. People respond to the history and traditions of a party as much as (more) the person in the suit who's standing this time around. I think we all know this to be true. I think it's a little insulting to those in the electorate who want to vote for a party and don't care to scrutinise the individual to call it Stockholm Syndrome. It's perfectly fine if that's the lens people want to see politics through.
No its not fine. Because ot is not reality. They are fooling themselves. And from that then derives the ida that the parties somehow own the votes of the MPs and can do with them what they will. And the idea that MPs should stand for reelection if they leave a party. Both are simply wrong but are arguments perpetuated by those who wish to keep the public believing the myth that they are voting for a party not an individual MP.
In the real world, people vote for a synthesis of the party, the party leader, and the individual standing for election.
This seems to be true around the world, where there is some link between the individual politician and the electoral district. Party list systems obviously exempted.
Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory
Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."
You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?
1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed. 2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations. 3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.
It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.
I'd argue, and same to @FF43, that HRC's comments are not just sour grapes but also contributed to the worsening politics in the States. Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate President just gave his supporters the excuse they wanted to up the ante the next time.
With regards to @FF43, I see where yo are coming from but it is splitting hairs - if she is saying publicly he is an illegitimate President, by the nature of her words, she is saying he has no legitimacy and therefore should not be President. It might be phrased in different ways from Trump saying Biden stole the election but it's the same implication - he is President due to illegitimate means.
As I have also argued as well before, a coup can take many forms - it does not have to be just violent, a la 'A Very British Coup'
I don't think it's splitting hairs. There is a material difference between Trump's and Clinton's allegations. Would be a large difference if her assertions are true, which is possible.
But I don't think her comments were wise, precisely because they will be treated in the same way as Trump's. It doesn't do any good.
There is not a material difference. Clinton accused Trump of being an illegitimate President and Trump accused Biden of stealing the election. Both claimed the same thing - the winner should not be President.
Mind you, Clinton was only copying Carter in her comments:
The actions of both are clearly different - including so many bogus lawsuits, pressuring officials to act unlawfully (such as with Pence) and so on, so the argument here is presumably that the issue is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
That could be true, the accusation of illegitimacy was wrong behaviour, but of course differences of degree can be rather significant, like difference between a summer day of 15 degrees and 45 degrees.
There was quite a serious campaign to get the electoral college to overrule the result in 2016.
No there wasn't. There was a clear and prompt concession from the loser and the outgoing administration offered full cooperation with the transition.
Though some Dem representatives objected to the 2004 result.
The USA has always had elections which might be tainted and politicians who have tantrums when they lose legitimately.
But not refusal by the president to concede or transition, followed by a systematic smearing of the entire democratic process.
Trump certainly took things to a new level of reprehensibility.
Or perhaps not - it was the unwillingness to accept the result in 1860 which led to the Civil War.
Its ironic that a country which is designed around the 'separation of powers' principle has had so many contested election results.
In 1860, it wasn’t so much the election of Lincoln that set the Slave States off. It was the clear demonstration that Southern Political power was being eclipsed.
The Fire Eaters had lots of maps of the future US, with the Mid West and West divided into a hundred states, by 1900. They assumed that the increasingly Republican North would use its power and the votes of the immigrants to build vast majorities in the Senate (2 seats per state), Congress (population) and for the presidency (electors).
Once they could no longer control the state creation process, they thought they would be rapidly pushed into a permanent minority. And that slavery would simply be voted out of existence.
Comments
Socially liberal changes almost always come from Labour governments and the Liberals, free market economic reforms however almost always come from Conservative governments and also from the Liberals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies#Objection_to_certification_of_Ohio's_electoral_votes
The USA has always had elections which might be tainted and politicians who have tantrums when they lose legitimately.
‘It was utterly surreal’: police accused of farcical error after 14 arrested at seminar on day of coronation
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/21/it-was-utterly-surreal-police-accused-of-farcical-error-after-14-arrested-at-seminar-on-day-of-coronation
A Republican presidential elector has become the first to announce that he intends to defect from Donald Trump when he casts his vote as part of the electoral college, vowing to try and block the president-elect from reaching the White House.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
The less dramatic point was about issues of tax thresholds and similar, and how parties change their position and it makes no sense to claim they cannot claim credit for things they do nowon the basis they used to hold a different position, since that is most policies governments enact, given enough time. Yet that is what is being argued when people try to argue coalition policy X only one party can claim credit for.
I say that not because I am judging the party as being good or not, but because I am a fan in principle of coalitions, and I think to work they have to take good and bad together - they work up a programme and share the credit and blame. Whether they opposed generic policy X prior is pretty irrelevant if they then trudged through the lobbies to vote for policy X - people benefiting from a policy don't care if it was the result of a political deal.
What, precisely, is the security consideration about attending a public speed awareness course? Am I to believe Cabinet Ministers never attend public events. If she has ever appeared at a public event whilst a minister your argument falls flat on its face, since it means she could attend a public speed awareness course.
They're not even all in person.
From the reports I think she has probably stayed on the right side of the line, but the idea a Cabinet Minister cannot attend to the personal matter of a minor speeding infraction without it being a 'ministerial' matter is one of the barmiest things I've read in ages. Is there no separation between the individual and the office anymore?
To make workers ineligible for benefits ?
Or to increase pay levels so that workers earn too much to be eligible for benefits ?
You need to deal with the practicalities of the world instead of screaming 'disaster' about everything.
My point was really that this shouldn't be a scandal, because what she was trying to do was reasonable from her perspective. Someone should have just told her not to do it and that should have been the end of that. It has been blown up in to a 'scandal' by people who hate her, whilst her supporters will just see it all as part of a conspiracy against her. It is just a largely pointless and predictable cycle of reaction.
Or perhaps not - it was the unwillingness to accept the result in 1860 which led to the Civil War.
Its ironic that a country which is designed around the 'separation of powers' principle has had so many contested election results.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/celebrities-urge-electoral-college-voters-donald-trump-faithless-electors-gop-a7477311.html
Worth sitting through the advert to see how awful this was. Of course, exactly the same kind of person was aghast at the idea of faithless electors in 2020.
Makes the brexit-reversers look positively mild.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections
Consider what they claim to believe:
1) That the 2020 election was stolen
2) That they have the right to bear arms in order to defend themselves from oppression
And what have they done ?
Nothing.
All those 'Proud Boys' and 'Oath Keepers' and 'Three Percenters' should be active 'resistance fighters' if they believed what they proclaim.
This seems to be true around the world, where there is some link between the individual politician and the electoral district. Party list systems obviously exempted.
The Fire Eaters had lots of maps of the future US, with the Mid West and West divided into a hundred states, by 1900. They assumed that the increasingly Republican North would use its power and the votes of the immigrants to build vast majorities in the Senate (2 seats per state), Congress (population) and for the presidency (electors).
Once they could no longer control the state creation process, they thought they would be rapidly pushed into a permanent minority. And that slavery would simply be voted out of existence.