One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work
Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine
You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."
You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.
Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
Well, these parties can't win if the centre-left "democrats" make lawfare against the politicians - Le Pen - basically cripple parties they don't like - AfD - or simply exclude candidates not to their taste - Romania
You can argue each case on its merits, but denying there is a pattern is futile
And you know what, fuck it, do it, I am beyond caring. The left cannot see that they are storing up enormous trouble, and constantly pointing it out is tedious for all, at least for today, tho I am entirely correct
More importantly, I am about to make my first ever cucumber pickle
I am grateful for your willingness to explain everything to me, it must be tiring to be surrounded by your intellectual inferiors. Hope the cucumber pickle goes well.
US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.
"I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno
I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide Trump can say if only he had run for a third term he could have won but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
Any politician (and Trump is far from being an exception) backs themselves and their ability to turn poor approval ratings around - and he's had worse many times in the past.
It really isn't realistic to say that he's seen a couple of bad polls, three and a half years from the next Presidential election, and decided to throw in the towel.
Given he is constitutionally ineligible to run for President again and for a third term why should Trump give a toss if he even has a 1% approval rating while he governs as he wants to? It will be Vance now who has to face any voters backlash in 2028 not him
It's in Trump's interests to keep speculation about a third term alive as long as possible so that he doesn't become a lame duck.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
We do need a referendum. The voting system in this country belongs to the people of this country not fucking politicians. If they think it should be changed they should absolutely ask the people for permission
It's a complicated one for a referendum, as other systems have a sort of complexity about them which is hard to comperhend apart from anoraks. AV is about the simplest and it failed bigly, and I don't suppose most people even understood it. (It's the only reform I support for GEs).
Personally I really like our form of GE democracy for the House of Commons. The rules are the same for everyone, and voters all know the rules. Crucially the priority is winning seats not votes so each individual is part of a communal decision in which the key unit is the seat not the total national vote. So that each constituency election in a GE is also a local election. AV would make this work better.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work
Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine
You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."
You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.
Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
Well, these parties can't win if the centre-left "democrats" make lawfare against the politicians - Le Pen - basically cripple parties they don't like - AfD - or simply exclude candidates not to their taste - Romania
You can argue each case on its merits, but denying there is a pattern is futile
And you know what, fuck it, do it, I am beyond caring. The left cannot see that they are storing up enormous trouble, and constantly pointing it out is tedious for all, at least for today, tho I am entirely correct
More importantly, I am about to make my first ever cucumber pickle
I am grateful for your willingness to explain everything to me, it must be tiring to be surrounded by your intellectual inferiors. Hope the cucumber pickle goes well.
Well, thanks. Sincerely. Yes it is tiring, but then I accept that - being notably smarter than virtually everyone on here - that will be my role, thankless as it is. I've long ago yielded to my fate - prophet, sage, guru, call it what you will - patiently teaching is my task
I'll let you know how the pickle goes. It's part of a whole Nordic seafood thing I've never essayed before. I have actually bought dill
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
We do need a referendum. The voting system in this country belongs to the people of this country not fucking politicians. If they think it should be changed they should absolutely ask the people for permission
It's a complicated one for a referendum, as other systems have a sort of complexity about them which is hard to comperhend apart from anoraks. AV is about the simplest and it failed bigly, and I don't suppose most people even understood it. (It's the only reform I support for GEs).
Personally I really like our form of GE democracy for the House of Commons. The rules are the same for everyone, and voters all know the rules. Crucially the priority is winning seats not votes so each individual is part of a communal decision in which the key unit is the seat not the total national vote. So that each constituency election in a GE is also a local election. AV would make this work better.
Its not complicated at all, you want to change the voting system such as they did with the av referendum you just explain the system you want to change to. Then ask yes or no.
What absolutely shouldn't happen is its changed because politicians deem it advantageous to themselves which is lets face it what is most likely to happen if it was done by a party in parliament
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work
Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine
You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."
You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.
Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
Well, these parties can't win if the centre-left "democrats" make lawfare against the politicians - Le Pen - basically cripple parties they don't like - AfD - or simply exclude candidates not to their taste - Romania
You can argue each case on its merits, but denying there is a pattern is futile
And you know what, fuck it, do it, I am beyond caring. The left cannot see that they are storing up enormous trouble, and constantly pointing it out is tedious for all, at least for today, tho I am entirely correct
More importantly, I am about to make my first ever cucumber pickle
I am grateful for your willingness to explain everything to me, it must be tiring to be surrounded by your intellectual inferiors. Hope the cucumber pickle goes well.
Well, thanks. Sincerely. Yes it is tiring, but then I accept that - being notably smarter than virtually everyone on here - that will be my role, thankless as it is. I've long ago yielded to my fate - prophet, sage, guru, call it what you will - patiently teaching is my task
I'll let you know how the pickle goes. It's part of a whole Nordic seafood thing I've never essayed before. I have actually bought dill
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
We do need a referendum. The voting system in this country belongs to the people of this country not fucking politicians. If they think it should be changed they should absolutely ask the people for permission
I agree. Constitutionally there’s nothing stopping them. But doing it for presumed benefit, without a manifesto commitment or a referendum, would be seen as beyond the pale. Any government who tries that would, I suspect, get a well deserved kicking.
US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.
"I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno
I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide he can say if only he had run for a third term he could have run but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
Citation needed on that claim.
Sharp not an intellectual but shrewd even if you hate him
Shrewd? In a Swiss Tony sort of a way.
‘Winning an election is like grabbing the pussy of a beautiful woman.’
US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.
"I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno
I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide he can say if only he had run for a third term he could have run but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
Citation needed on that claim.
Sharp not an intellectual but shrewd even if you hate him
Your timeline starts too late. Mass immigration began before EU expansion with the plan to "rub the right's nose in diversity". In a way it was a historical accident that the EU expanded soon afterwards and for a time displaced some of the numbers that had previously been coming from outside Europe.
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
We do need a referendum. The voting system in this country belongs to the people of this country not fucking politicians. If they think it should be changed they should absolutely ask the people for permission
It's a complicated one for a referendum, as other systems have a sort of complexity about them which is hard to comperhend apart from anoraks. AV is about the simplest and it failed bigly, and I don't suppose most people even understood it. (It's the only reform I support for GEs).
Personally I really like our form of GE democracy for the House of Commons. The rules are the same for everyone, and voters all know the rules. Crucially the priority is winning seats not votes so each individual is part of a communal decision in which the key unit is the seat not the total national vote. So that each constituency election in a GE is also a local election. AV would make this work better.
Its not complicated at all, you want to change the voting system such as they did with the av referendum you just explain the system you want to change to. Then ask yes or no.
What absolutely shouldn't happen is its changed because politicians deem it advantageous to themselves which is lets face it what is most likely to happen if it was done by a party in parliament
Good luck explaining the system to a people who believe that falling inflation=falling prices and that lower levels of government borrowing=falling debt. And that debt and deficit are two words for the same thing.
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
Very good summary!
Also remember that both Cameron and Merkel (and many other European pols) have admitted that "multiculturalism is a failure" - or an error, disaster, mistake, etc
What have they done about it? Nothing. Only the Danes - again - seem to have actually acted on this realisation (and Norway, according to @Richard_Tyndall)
Tony Blair was warned of Eastern European immigration surge following EU expansion
Tony Blair's Labour government pressed ahead with plans to grant unrestricted access to the UK to migrants from eastern Europe despite mounting concerns among senior ministers, according to newly-released official files. Papers released to National Archives in Kew, west London, show deputy prime minister John Prescott and foreign secretary Jack Straw both urged delay, warning of a surge in immigration unless some controls were put in place.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work
Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine
You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."
You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.
Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
Starmer ran a BNP-lite campaign against Rishi Sunak, including dog-whistles about deporting people to Bangladesh and constantly wrapping himself in the flag.
Remains to be seen if he'll deport one of his MPs to Bangladesh
Labour were happy to have her campaign up in Runcorn !
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work
Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine
You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."
You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.
Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
Well, these parties can't win if the centre-left "democrats" make lawfare against the politicians - Le Pen - basically cripple parties they don't like - AfD - or simply exclude candidates not to their taste - Romania
You can argue each case on its merits, but denying there is a pattern is futile
And you know what, fuck it, do it, I am beyond caring. The left cannot see that they are storing up enormous trouble, and constantly pointing it out is tedious for all, at least for today, tho I am entirely correct
More importantly, I am about to make my first ever cucumber pickle
I am grateful for your willingness to explain everything to me, it must be tiring to be surrounded by your intellectual inferiors. Hope the cucumber pickle goes well.
I’ve made cucumber pickle a few times. It’s lovely.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
My wife and I had a lovely meal at home last night. We had the TV off, no electronic devices,,we just sat and chatted. It was lovely.
Reminds me off a wedding speech joke ( I may have used). What’s the secret to a happy marriage? Go out for dinner five times a week. I go on Tuesdays and Thursdays, she goes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays…
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
No. Leon says that if we don't adopt hard right immigration policies then people will turn to parties that he admits are fascist. If you can't see the problem with that argument then I have some history books you can borrow.
No, I am saying people want tough immigration policies. So how about this? How about letting the people have their way and severely restricting immigration and ending asylum? You know, enacting democracy? It might just work
Because this is what the Danish Social Democrats did. They listened to the Danish people and they bulldoze ethnic ghettoes and they severely restrict asylum (and much more) and guess what - they won an election on this platform, and Danish democracy is fine
You want to ban parties that would copy the successful Danish Social Democrats. That's going to turn out badly
The Labour Party won an election last year on saying "Britain is a tolerant and compassionate country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse. Schemes like Homes for Ukraine, Hong Kong humanitarian visas, and the Syrian resettlement programme have provided important routes for refugees seeking sanctuary."
You have long predicted a wave of right-wing victories because 'the people' hate immigration. But 'the people' don't seem to agree with you, the anti-immigration parties lost in France, lost in the UK, lost in Germany, lost in Ireland, lost in Canada, lost in Australia.
Maybe you're right and there's a point where 'the people' will decide to support parties that want to end asylum, but it's not now.
Starmer ran a BNP-lite campaign against Rishi Sunak, including dog-whistles about deporting people to Bangladesh and constantly wrapping himself in the flag.
Remains to be seen if he'll deport one of his MPs to Bangladesh
Labour were happy to have her campaign up in Runcorn !
Tony Blair was warned of Eastern European immigration surge following EU expansion
Tony Blair's Labour government pressed ahead with plans to grant unrestricted access to the UK to migrants from eastern Europe despite mounting concerns among senior ministers, according to newly-released official files. Papers released to National Archives in Kew, west London, show deputy prime minister John Prescott and foreign secretary Jack Straw both urged delay, warning of a surge in immigration unless some controls were put in place.
Why do you think labour introduced minimum wage it wasn't to help the low paid it was to stop the rebellion of immigration plunging pay into the ground
I see the officer who shot Chris Kaba is now facing a gross misconduct charge from the IOPC. It's a good thing police officers don't regularly shoot members of the public in this country. They'd never be outside of a courtroom.
After the farce of the murder trial you might have expected the officer to get some relief.
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
Why on earth would they want PR? FPTP delivered a crushing win on a tiny % of the electorate.
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
I don't see why A8 accession was a problem for you. They came over to work and pay taxes. Those who stayed assimilated into society and those who wanted to return returned.
Tony Blair was warned of Eastern European immigration surge following EU expansion
Tony Blair's Labour government pressed ahead with plans to grant unrestricted access to the UK to migrants from eastern Europe despite mounting concerns among senior ministers, according to newly-released official files. Papers released to National Archives in Kew, west London, show deputy prime minister John Prescott and foreign secretary Jack Straw both urged delay, warning of a surge in immigration unless some controls were put in place.
Why do you think labour introduced minimum wage it wasn't to help the low paid it was to stop the rebellion of immigration plunging pay into the ground
Yes, I think that too. I remember Nick Palmer telling me it wasn't so about a decade ago, but I still think that's why they did it
US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.
"I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno
I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide he can say if only he had run for a third term he could have run but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
Citation needed on that claim.
Sharp not an intellectual but shrewd even if you hate him
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Indeed we are seeing a much less extreme version of this now with Labour experiencing a backlash at least in part due to having a very wooly manifesto and trying to be all things to all people, then p*ssing off everyone when they actually tried to take decisions.
Here's a reasonably brief explanation of the ways to amend the US Constitution:
"There are two steps in the amendment process. Proposals to amend the Constitution must be properly adopted and ratified before they change the Constitution. First, there are two procedures for adopting the language of a proposed amendment, either by (a) Congress, by two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, or (b) national convention (which shall take place whenever two-thirds of the state legislatures collectively call for one). Second, there are two procedures for ratifying the proposed amendment, which requires three-fourths of the states' (presently 38 of 50) approval: (a) consent of the state legislatures, or (b) consent of state ratifying conventions. The ratification method is chosen by Congress for each amendment.[126] State ratifying conventions were used only once, for the Twenty-first Amendment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States#Article_V_–_Amendment_Process
(In a sense, the first 10 amendments (commonly known as the Bill of Rights) can be considered part of the original Constitution, since backers of the proposed Constitution promised them in order to gain enough support for ratification.)
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
Why on earth would they want PR? FPTP delivered a crushing win on a tiny % of the electorate.
Reform now don't, however PR is now clearly in the interest of Labour and the Tories not just the LDs and Greens
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
Why on earth would they want PR? FPTP delivered a crushing win on a tiny % of the electorate.
My objection to pr is the whole thing been talking to algakirk about....I get a vote with no idea what I am actually voting for because with pr they don't decide what their mandate means till after they get my vote.
Call me silly but I want to vote for policies I think will benefit people. I think parties should be able to be challenged in court for breaking their manifesto promises
Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany
"Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.
"Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.
It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"
Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?
Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
In what way is it all-but-crippled?
You do realise that the state AfD parties in 3 states have had the right-extremist designation for some time now, and people still vote for them.
And you are too lazy to find out on what basis the AfD has been designated so. It's because they actively campaign against fundament parts of the German constitution. Germany because of its , rightly or wrongly, has mechanisms against parties that seek to end democracy by getting voted into power. That is what this is about.
Sinn Fein do the same in the UK.
We dont ban them and they are in government in NI.
German parties are just ignoring the voters.
Why is it acceptable to restrict he AfD but give Die Linke - the heirs to Stalin -a clean bill of health ?
I know it's probably pointless arguing here as obviously very few have any genuine interest in German politics but
Die Linke has been under surveillance by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz and some state Verfassungsschutz offices since its formation in 2007, and partly/sometimes classed as extreme left.
There's a long list of parties including the AfD and the Left that voters can and do vote for if they think the governing parties are ignoring them.
In what way do Sinn Fein "do the same" as the AfD?
My wife and I had a lovely meal at home last night. We had the TV off, no electronic devices,,we just sat and chatted. It was lovely.
Reminds me off a wedding speech joke ( I may have used). What’s the secret to a happy marriage? Go out for dinner five times a week. I go on Tuesdays and Thursdays, she goes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays…
Friend of mine told me the big secret, about six months after his wedding
He said the key to happiness in marriage is "not to have been married very long"
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
I don't see why A8 accession was a problem for you. They came over to work and pay taxes. Those who stayed assimilated into society and those who wanted to return returned.
You'd never had it so good!
It wasn't a problem for me personally, as I was employed at a spread betting firm in London. But for British tradesmen, labourers and unskilled workers it was an absolute disaster. Their bosses got so rich from it it made the GDP figures look good
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
I don't see why A8 accession was a problem for you. They came over to work and pay taxes. Those who stayed assimilated into society and those who wanted to return returned.
You'd never had it so good!
It wasn't a problem for me personally, as I was employed at a spread betting firm in London. But for British tradesmen, labourers and unskilled workers it was an absolute disaster. Their bosses got so rich from it it made the GDP figures look good
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
I don't see why A8 accession was a problem for you. They came over to work and pay taxes. Those who stayed assimilated into society and those who wanted to return returned.
You'd never had it so good!
The population of my town grew by 10% from a8 accession, we had 10k extra people. Funding for stuff like gp's etc did not grow by 10% because it was based on the 2000 census figures. A huge number of these new people weren't doing high paid jobs they were working in cafes etc. A large number also came with kids to the point that parents were complaining about the effect it was having on their kids schooling with so many children not having english as a first language in the classes putting extra strain on the teachers. This was in slough which is pretty multi cultural in the first place and a lot of the complaints were coming about schools from the second and third gen immigrants not just white people
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
Why on earth would they want PR? FPTP delivered a crushing win on a tiny % of the electorate.
My objection to pr is the whole thing been talking to algakirk about....I get a vote with no idea what I am actually voting for because with pr they don't decide what their mandate means till after they get my vote.
Call me silly but I want to vote for policies I think will benefit people. I think parties should be able to be challenged in court for breaking their manifesto promises
It's already trite law that manifesto promises are 'aspirations' rather than contractual terms.
A lot of the discussion seems to miss out or not understand the mechanics of parliament and the amount of time each bill can take. For example, the Conservatives had the last decade or so to either propose new laws (done in spades) or remove earlier legislation deemed inappropriate (Rwanda being safe etc). There is just not the parliamentary time or resources to have the revolution that some here want. And there is not the money, skills or resources for government departments / local authorities to effect any changes if they were successful.
At best you have to tweak at the margins, something the new Reform councillors will start finding out next week. And good luck to them. Anyone wanting to change the world should jump on the current Reform bandwagon and try their luck at the change they claim they want. Anything other than getting elected is just hot air.
As Reform celebrates its victories at this week’s local elections, their success can partly be attributed to the reputational damage suffered by the major parties, receiving better ratings on all key attributes apart from being tolerant:
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
Yes, the idea that the nation hasn't continually voted to lower immigration is for the birds. Brexit was a warning shot, I think a Reform majority will be the arrow between the eyes. Labour need to act now or they are staring oblivion in the face as their voters decamp to Reform. I could easily see Reform win a big majority on 35% with Labour down in the mid teens if they don't do anything substantially lower legal immigration and halt illegal immigration and asylum seekers not from Ukraine or Hong Kong, who I think most people agree are welcome.
My wife and I had a lovely meal at home last night. We had the TV off, no electronic devices,,we just sat and chatted. It was lovely.
Reminds me off a wedding speech joke ( I may have used). What’s the secret to a happy marriage? Go out for dinner five times a week. I go on Tuesdays and Thursdays, she goes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays…
Friend of mine told me the big secret, about six months after his wedding
He said the key to happiness in marriage is "not to have been married very long"
Rather to see it as a relationship where each gives and takes and works together for the marriage and the children brought into the family from it
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Yes, because 'democracy' is a constitutional framework, not a particular and moral way of using it.
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
Why on earth would they want PR? FPTP delivered a crushing win on a tiny % of the electorate.
My objection to pr is the whole thing been talking to algakirk about....I get a vote with no idea what I am actually voting for because with pr they don't decide what their mandate means till after they get my vote.
Call me silly but I want to vote for policies I think will benefit people. I think parties should be able to be challenged in court for breaking their manifesto promises
It's already trite law that manifesto promises are 'aspirations' rather than contractual terms.
A lot of the discussion seems to miss out or not understand the mechanics of parliament and the amount of time each bill can take. For example, the Conservatives had the last decade or so to either propose new laws (done in spades) or remove earlier legislation deemed inappropriate (Rwanda being safe etc). There is just not the parliamentary time or resources to have the revolution that some here want. And there is not the money, skills or resources for government departments / local authorities to effect any changes if they were successful.
At best you have to tweak at the margins, something the new Reform councillors will start finding out next week. And good luck to them. Anyone wanting to change the world should jump on the current Reform bandwagon and try their luck at the change they claim they want. Anything other than getting elected is just hot air.
Manifesto promises are aspirations they claim because it suits politicians. They can feed us bullshit for an election and then ignore them after they got our vote. Now I do accept they for reasons might not be able to achieve what they promised due to unanticipated issues....however I think they should be still be able to challenged legally to show they at least tried and show the reasons they could not achieve the promise. Otherwise we are merely giving them carte blanche to promise anything then just ignore the promise.
Democracy only works if we can vote for what we prefer and it at least tries to be implemented
The democracy you describe is vote for what you want to happen just don't expect us to bother trying to do what you voted for. Sorry I dont see that as democracy
Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany
"Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.
"Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.
It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"
Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?
Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
In what way is it all-but-crippled?
You do realise that the state AfD parties in 3 states have had the right-extremist designation for some time now, and people still vote for them.
And you are too lazy to find out on what basis the AfD has been designated so. It's because they actively campaign against fundament parts of the German constitution. Germany because of its , rightly or wrongly, has mechanisms against parties that seek to end democracy by getting voted into power. That is what this is about.
Sinn Fein do the same in the UK.
We dont ban them and they are in government in NI.
German parties are just ignoring the voters.
Why is it acceptable to restrict he AfD but give Die Linke - the heirs to Stalin -a clean bill of health ?
We have spied on Sinn Fein for decades though, and as I understand it that’s all the German extremist designation does: allows the intelligence services to keep an eye on them.
Seems sensible to me, given that they are at least partly actual Nazis.
Then why give Die Linke a clear run ? Some of them are they are Stalinist and have no qualms about eliniinating the opposition either.
They shouldn’t. They should be spying on it too. Die Linke is a Russian-infiltrated party whose views endanger Eastern Europe. It should absolutely be deemed extremist.
Like AfD there are more moderate voices in there, but there are also Putinists.
Any party in Europe that sees Russia as a friend is a clear and present danger.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Yes, because 'democracy' is a constitutional framework, not a particular and moral way of using it.
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
But its not democracy by any definition
Democracy is voting what you want to happen
Currently we vote for what we want and its ignored that is not democracy
People keep wondering why people are losing faith in politicians...its this...it doesnt matter what we vote for...you still give us what you want to do
Labour and Conservatives both emulating Reform is good news for the Lib Dems. It will put Labour in no man’s land.
I do think we have the once in a lifetime opportunity to Macronise the political centre. Not under Davey, it would require another (Daisy is probably next in line). If politics is coalescing around liberal internationalism vs national populism, then neither the Tories nor Labour fit. We are fighting on a different axis of the political compass now.
Labour and Conservatives both emulating Reform is good news for the Lib Dems. It will put Labour in no man’s land.
I do think we have the once in a lifetime opportunity to Macronise the political centre. Not under Davey, it would require another (Daisy is probably next in line). If politics is coalescing around liberal internationalism vs national populism, then neither the Tories nor Labour fit. We are fighting on a different axis of the political compass now.
You should probably have husband beater moran as leader
Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany
"Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.
"Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.
It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"
Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?
Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
In what way is it all-but-crippled?
You do realise that the state AfD parties in 3 states have had the right-extremist designation for some time now, and people still vote for them.
And you are too lazy to find out on what basis the AfD has been designated so. It's because they actively campaign against fundament parts of the German constitution. Germany because of its , rightly or wrongly, has mechanisms against parties that seek to end democracy by getting voted into power. That is what this is about.
Sinn Fein do the same in the UK.
We dont ban them and they are in government in NI.
German parties are just ignoring the voters.
Why is it acceptable to restrict he AfD but give Die Linke - the heirs to Stalin -a clean bill of health ?
We have spied on Sinn Fein for decades though, and as I understand it that’s all the German extremist designation does: allows the intelligence services to keep an eye on them.
Seems sensible to me, given that they are at least partly actual Nazis.
Then why give Die Linke a clear run ? Some of them are they are Stalinist and have no qualms about eliniinating the opposition either.
They shouldn’t. They should be spying on it too. Die Linke is a Russian-infiltrated party whose views endanger Eastern Europe. It should absolutely be deemed extremist.
Like AfD there are more moderate voices in there, but there are also Putinists.
Any party in Europe that sees Russia as a friend is a clear and present danger.
There needs to be more spying all round. The Poles should be spying on the CDU and SPD. We should be spying on Brussels, etc.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
Hope is an ineradicable condition of the human heart. Neither the condition of UK politics nor your best efforts can entirely eclipse it. It's buttercup time, and last Sunday I was in one of our great cathedrals in my minor role of centrist grandad at the baptism of my latest grandchild. Centrist grandad, Yes. Beyond hope: No.
And good luck to you: enjoy life, it is brief
But consider the possibility that the reason Britain is now in such a state is BECAUSE of hapless lying mediocrities like Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt, and so forth
There are many worse people, of course. But oh my God this country can and should and must do so much BETTER
And the people you want to rule the country are worse. Farage is a lying grifter who falls out with virtually everyone he works with. He pretends to know what the common man in Britain wants, when he spends f-all time in his constituency and instead decides to brown-tongue the world's richest man and America's worse president.
If you want BETTER, don't look towards Farage and Reform.
The trouble is, this line only works if mainstream parties deliver better results.
Labour and Conservatives both emulating Reform is good news for the Lib Dems. It will put Labour in no man’s land.
I do think we have the once in a lifetime opportunity to Macronise the political centre. Not under Davey, it would require another (Daisy is probably next in line). If politics is coalescing around liberal internationalism vs national populism, then neither the Tories nor Labour fit. We are fighting on a different axis of the political compass now.
You should probably have husband beater moran as leader
Moran has been very good on foreign policy and Gaza, but she is not leadership material (I voted for her back in the day but have changed my mind). A good foreign secretary.
Cooper is confident, articulate, conveys “leadership”, and has decent political savvy.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Yes, because 'democracy' is a constitutional framework, not a particular and moral way of using it.
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
But its not democracy by any definition
Democracy is voting what you want to happen
Currently we vote for what we want and its ignored that is not democracy
People keep wondering why people are losing faith in politicians...its this...it doesnt matter what we vote for...you still give us what you want to do
Thanks. I don't think we disagree in substance about anything. We both want honest politicians and non-hypocritical voters; we don't really have either. I say that is democracy despite its failures; you say it isn't democracy because of its failures. Which comes down to whether 'democracy' refers to the constitutional foundations it rests on, or its honest and honourable exercise.
Footnote: You would like the promises to be actionable in court. Good luck. It won't happen.
Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany
"Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.
"Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.
It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"
Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?
Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
In what way is it all-but-crippled?
You do realise that the state AfD parties in 3 states have had the right-extremist designation for some time now, and people still vote for them.
And you are too lazy to find out on what basis the AfD has been designated so. It's because they actively campaign against fundament parts of the German constitution. Germany because of its , rightly or wrongly, has mechanisms against parties that seek to end democracy by getting voted into power. That is what this is about.
Sinn Fein do the same in the UK.
We dont ban them and they are in government in NI.
German parties are just ignoring the voters.
Why is it acceptable to restrict he AfD but give Die Linke - the heirs to Stalin -a clean bill of health ?
We have spied on Sinn Fein for decades though, and as I understand it that’s all the German extremist designation does: allows the intelligence services to keep an eye on them.
Seems sensible to me, given that they are at least partly actual Nazis.
Then why give Die Linke a clear run ? Some of them are they are Stalinist and have no qualms about eliniinating the opposition either.
They shouldn’t. They should be spying on it too. Die Linke is a Russian-infiltrated party whose views endanger Eastern Europe. It should absolutely be deemed extremist.
Like AfD there are more moderate voices in there, but there are also Putinists.
Any party in Europe that sees Russia as a friend is a clear and present danger.
There needs to be more spying all round. The Poles should be spying on the CDU and SPD. We should be spying on Brussels, etc.
All those things are almost certainly happening already. I sincerely hope we are spying on the US. If not we’re utter mugs.
Emulating Reform is stupid. Aside from any moral or practical issues, Reform is better at being Reform than any other party.
If you want to defeat the Reform, understand then. Yes. Then come up with policies that will actually deal with the issues at the core of why Reform is successful. They can be progressive policies - but it needs to be a coherent plan, that is sellable.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Yes, because 'democracy' is a constitutional framework, not a particular and moral way of using it.
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
But its not democracy by any definition
Democracy is voting what you want to happen
Currently we vote for what we want and its ignored that is not democracy
People keep wondering why people are losing faith in politicians...its this...it doesnt matter what we vote for...you still give us what you want to do
Thanks. I don't think we disagree in substance about anything. We both want honest politicians and non-hypocritical voters; we don't really have either. I say that is democracy despite its failures; you say it isn't democracy because of its failures. Which comes down to whether 'democracy' refers to the constitutional foundations it rests on, or its honest and honourable exercise.
Footnote: You would like the promises to be actionable in court. Good luck. It won't happen.
I don't doubt it wont happen because politicians would have to pass the law that binds them to what they profess to want to do in order to get our vote.
I just don't get how we can have a democracy when we don't know what we are actually voting for which is the current situation. I have mentioned I haven't voted since 2010....that is because I became disillusion when the coalition came up with a "manifesto" that I would have voted against but my vote counted towards their mandate
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Yes, because 'democracy' is a constitutional framework, not a particular and moral way of using it.
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
But its not democracy by any definition
Democracy is voting what you want to happen
Currently we vote for what we want and its ignored that is not democracy
People keep wondering why people are losing faith in politicians...its this...it doesnt matter what we vote for...you still give us what you want to do
What we have is representative democracy.
So people vote for politicians. Who turn out to be useless. The People then vote for another lot. And so on.
The current brouhaha is because people are voting for a brand new set of shysters, instead of alternating their votes between the traditional shysters.
Emulating Reform is stupid. Aside from any moral or practical issues, Reform is better at being Reform than any other party.
If you want to defeat the Reform, understand then. Yes. Then come up with policies that will actually deal with the issues at the core of why Reform is successful. They can be progressive policies - but it needs to be a coherent plan, that is sellable.
It’s not about emulating Farage but about taking away his oxygen. If immigration is the no 1 issue at the next election then Farage probably becomes PM.
US President Donald Trump has denied that he is considering running for a third presidential term, a move which experts agree is banned under the US Constitution.
"I'll be an eight-year president, I'll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important," Trump told NBC's Meet the Press with Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l3399wvno
I read Trump's statement to mean the opposite that you do. I read it to mean that he want's an eight-year ten starting in 2025.
Trump isn't stupid. He can see he has a 41% approval rating, if Vance loses the next presidential election in a landslide Trump can say if only he had run for a third term he could have won but he wasn't allowed to while also knowing full well he too would have lost nearly as badly
Any politician (and Trump is far from being an exception) backs themselves and their ability to turn poor approval ratings around - and he's had worse many times in the past.
It really isn't realistic to say that he's seen a couple of bad polls, three and a half years from the next Presidential election, and decided to throw in the towel.
Given he is constitutionally ineligible to run for President again and for a third term why should Trump give a toss if he even has a 1% approval rating while he governs as he wants to? It will be Vance now who has to face any voters backlash in 2028 not him
It's in Trump's interests to keep speculation about a third term alive as long as possible so that he doesn't become a lame duck.
There is no room for speculation about a 3rd term other than inside Trump's addled brain and among the nodding dogs that he surrounds himself with.
Unless he intends to overthrow the constitution (which of course can't be ruled out) he cannot run for a third term, end of discussion, nothing to speculate about.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
How close to an election could Labour decide to go for PR?
If you rush it through, a new law can be introduced in a few days. There’s no formal mechanism stopping Labour doing that the same week an election is called.
Why don't they do it straight away? I wouldn't object to that, since I support PR. We don't need a referendum. I would object to them doing it just before an election.
Why on earth would they want PR? FPTP delivered a crushing win on a tiny % of the electorate.
My objection to pr is the whole thing been talking to algakirk about....I get a vote with no idea what I am actually voting for because with pr they don't decide what their mandate means till after they get my vote.
Call me silly but I want to vote for policies I think will benefit people. I think parties should be able to be challenged in court for breaking their manifesto promises
OT, I’ve just been listening to Skyfall by Adele and No Time to Die by Billie Eilish (both are on my daughter’s car journey play list).
Do you think when an artist is selected for a bond theme they’re issued with a style guide including obligatory keys, chord sequences and instruments?
All bond tunes must be minor key. All but a scarce few must be andante or adagio (live and let die, die another day and the living daylights are exceptions). All must contain a sequence of chromatics starting at so: so, le, la.
Skyfall in particular is essentially the same in tonality and structure as Diamonds are Forever.
My wife and I had a lovely meal at home last night. We had the TV off, no electronic devices,,we just sat and chatted. It was lovely.
Reminds me off a wedding speech joke ( I may have used). What’s the secret to a happy marriage? Go out for dinner five times a week. I go on Tuesdays and Thursdays, she goes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays…
Friend of mine told me the big secret, about six months after his wedding
He said the key to happiness in marriage is "not to have been married very long"
Rather to see it as a relationship where each gives and takes and works together for the marriage and the children brought into the family from it
My wife and my 61st wedding anniversary is just 10 days away, and the key to happiness is a shared love of humour, family and just being together and in our case spending decades travelling worldwide
I should add she promised to 'love, honour and obey' me in our Church of Scotland ceremony but has told me on many occassions that she had confided in the Good Lord and He had confirmed obey was not required !!!!!
Labour and Conservatives both emulating Reform is good news for the Lib Dems. It will put Labour in no man’s land.
I do think we have the once in a lifetime opportunity to Macronise the political centre. Not under Davey, it would require another (Daisy is probably next in line). If politics is coalescing around liberal internationalism vs national populism, then neither the Tories nor Labour fit. We are fighting on a different axis of the political compass now.
You should probably have husband beater moran as leader
Moran has been very good on foreign policy and Gaza, but she is not leadership material (I voted for her back in the day but have changed my mind). A good foreign secretary.
Cooper is confident, articulate, conveys “leadership”, and has decent political savvy.
She thinks quickly hence speaks quickly. I can emphasise, but the sad reality is that voters take more seriously politicians who speak slowly and carefully.
Who is destroying democracy? Right now? It is not the populist right, in Europe, it is the centre and centre-left which cannot admit this its postwar religion of mass immigration and multiculturalism has turned out to be a disaster. As they cannot admit this, other parties are about to take power that DO admit this, and so the Establishment just bans them - Le Pen, Romania, now Germany
"Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been declared ‘right-wing extremist’ who are ‘against the free democratic order’ by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) can now increase its investigation of the AfD, including tapping their phones, intercepting their electronic communications, and recruiting informants within the party. Public servants, especially those in the police or military, may find themselves fired unless they leave the party.
"Members of the party may find themselves barred from gun ownership. Some in public sector television are calling for the AfD to be kept off the airwaves. The AfD is being treated as though it were a dangerous fringe group, when in fact it is the second-largest party in Germany.
It will probably also mean the AfD is denied more of the generous funding that the German taxpayer provides political parties, putting them at a deliberate disadvantage. Many in the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) and some in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) want to push for the AfD to be banned entirely, which has already been discussed in parliament"
Stop treating democracy like it’s a creed or religion, it’s just a certain aspect of particular constitutional arrangements.
If you're a German and you firmly support the policies of the AfD, a party which is now all-but-crippled in its attempts to gain legal democratic power, how are you then meant to see these policies enacted?
Basically, you cannot. And when voter opinions are disallowed in a polity, what nearly always follows is violence, because there is no other way to express your political will
In what way is it all-but-crippled?
You do realise that the state AfD parties in 3 states have had the right-extremist designation for some time now, and people still vote for them.
And you are too lazy to find out on what basis the AfD has been designated so. It's because they actively campaign against fundament parts of the German constitution. Germany because of its , rightly or wrongly, has mechanisms against parties that seek to end democracy by getting voted into power. That is what this is about.
Sinn Fein do the same in the UK.
We dont ban them and they are in government in NI.
German parties are just ignoring the voters.
Why is it acceptable to restrict he AfD but give Die Linke - the heirs to Stalin -a clean bill of health ?
We have spied on Sinn Fein for decades though, and as I understand it that’s all the German extremist designation does: allows the intelligence services to keep an eye on them.
Seems sensible to me, given that they are at least partly actual Nazis.
Then why give Die Linke a clear run ? Some of them are they are Stalinist and have no qualms about eliniinating the opposition either.
They shouldn’t. They should be spying on it too. Die Linke is a Russian-infiltrated party whose views endanger Eastern Europe. It should absolutely be deemed extremist.
Like AfD there are more moderate voices in there, but there are also Putinists.
Any party in Europe that sees Russia as a friend is a clear and present danger.
There needs to be more spying all round. The Poles should be spying on the CDU and SPD. We should be spying on Brussels, etc.
All those things are almost certainly happening already. I sincerely hope we are spying on the US. If not we’re utter mugs.
Getting into their WhatsApp groups doesn’t appear to be that difficult?
My wife and I had a lovely meal at home last night. We had the TV off, no electronic devices,,we just sat and chatted. It was lovely.
Reminds me off a wedding speech joke ( I may have used). What’s the secret to a happy marriage? Go out for dinner five times a week. I go on Tuesdays and Thursdays, she goes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays…
Friend of mine told me the big secret, about six months after his wedding
He said the key to happiness in marriage is "not to have been married very long"
Rather to see it as a relationship where each gives and takes and works together for the marriage and the children brought into the family from it
The key is to be complementary and to be complimentary.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Yes, because 'democracy' is a constitutional framework, not a particular and moral way of using it.
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
But its not democracy by any definition
Democracy is voting what you want to happen
Currently we vote for what we want and its ignored that is not democracy
People keep wondering why people are losing faith in politicians...its this...it doesnt matter what we vote for...you still give us what you want to do
What we have is representative democracy.
So people vote for politicians. Who turn out to be useless. The People then vote for another lot. And so on.
The current brouhaha is because people are voting for a brand new set of shysters, instead of alternating their votes between the traditional shysters.
Which is also why sooner or later people are going to ignore parliament and laws and just do our own thing, many of us already do safe in the knowledge that if we dont post about it on facebook or twitter the police will never investigate
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Yes, because 'democracy' is a constitutional framework, not a particular and moral way of using it.
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
But its not democracy by any definition
Democracy is voting what you want to happen
Currently we vote for what we want and its ignored that is not democracy
People keep wondering why people are losing faith in politicians...its this...it doesnt matter what we vote for...you still give us what you want to do
What we have is representative democracy.
So people vote for politicians. Who turn out to be useless. The People then vote for another lot. And so on.
The current brouhaha is because people are voting for a brand new set of shysters, instead of alternating their votes between the traditional shysters.
Which is also why sooner or later people are going to ignore parliament and laws and just do our own thing, many of us already do safe in the knowledge that if we dont post about it on facebook or twitter the police will never investigate
What do you do that you are scared of posting it on social media?
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
The Observer has ceased to be. Or at least, it ain't the Guardian anymore.
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Yes, because 'democracy' is a constitutional framework, not a particular and moral way of using it.
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
But its not democracy by any definition
Democracy is voting what you want to happen
Currently we vote for what we want and its ignored that is not democracy
People keep wondering why people are losing faith in politicians...its this...it doesnt matter what we vote for...you still give us what you want to do
What we have is representative democracy.
So people vote for politicians. Who turn out to be useless. The People then vote for another lot. And so on.
The current brouhaha is because people are voting for a brand new set of shysters, instead of alternating their votes between the traditional shysters.
Which is also why sooner or later people are going to ignore parliament and laws and just do our own thing, many of us already do safe in the knowledge that if we dont post about it on facebook or twitter the police will never investigate
What do you do that you are scared of posting it on social media?
I was saying the police only investigate things posted on twitter or facebook....report being burgalred or your car broken into....you just get a crime number.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
My wife and I had a lovely meal at home last night. We had the TV off, no electronic devices,,we just sat and chatted. It was lovely.
Reminds me off a wedding speech joke ( I may have used). What’s the secret to a happy marriage? Go out for dinner five times a week. I go on Tuesdays and Thursdays, she goes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays…
Friend of mine told me the big secret, about six months after his wedding
He said the key to happiness in marriage is "not to have been married very long"
Rather to see it as a relationship where each gives and takes and works together for the marriage and the children brought into the family from it
And thus Sunil spake unto his PB Disciples: "Know ye that the Lord God never married the mother if His only begotten son."
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Yes, because 'democracy' is a constitutional framework, not a particular and moral way of using it.
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
But its not democracy by any definition
Democracy is voting what you want to happen
Currently we vote for what we want and its ignored that is not democracy
People keep wondering why people are losing faith in politicians...its this...it doesnt matter what we vote for...you still give us what you want to do
What we have is representative democracy.
So people vote for politicians. Who turn out to be useless. The People then vote for another lot. And so on.
The current brouhaha is because people are voting for a brand new set of shysters, instead of alternating their votes between the traditional shysters.
Trouble is that politicians are shysters because people are shysters. All of us, even the nice ones. We all think that we're entitled to goodies that we haven't earned and should be spared any inconvenience. Hence the popularity of "solutions" that maximise goodies now at the cost of future pain (hence pensions problems building up over decades, or the hatred of capital spending) or push the problem onto a nebulous distant "someone else" (NIMBYism, or Trump's tariffs.)
And yes, all this applies to immigration as well. Unless those who have retired early are willing to come out of retirement to do those jobs that we currently have to import people to do? No, thought not. (I don't do paid work for as many hours as I could, and I'm only in my early fifties, so that's me as well.)
"There's a painless solution" will always beat "this solution is going to hurt quite a bit" in debate. That's just practical politics. Many of the poor sods elected on Farage's coattails are about to get a crash course in that. Part of me suspects that Nigel knows this as well; if he ever had actual responsibility, his trousers would be permanently brown.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
Rawnsley has little fresh to say. Unless this counts: The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government.
Simple when you know how.
Starmer and labour had a landslide victory just 9 months ago and it demonstrates just how poorly they have governed to be in the mess they are at present
It goes without saying that they would not be where they are today if it was perceived they knew how to govern and neither would Farage be writing all the headlines
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Yes, because 'democracy' is a constitutional framework, not a particular and moral way of using it.
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
But its not democracy by any definition
Democracy is voting what you want to happen
Currently we vote for what we want and its ignored that is not democracy
People keep wondering why people are losing faith in politicians...its this...it doesnt matter what we vote for...you still give us what you want to do
What we have is representative democracy.
So people vote for politicians. Who turn out to be useless. The People then vote for another lot. And so on.
The current brouhaha is because people are voting for a brand new set of shysters, instead of alternating their votes between the traditional shysters.
Trouble is that politicians are shysters because people are shysters. All of us, even the nice ones. We all think that we're entitled to goodies that we haven't earned and should be spared any inconvenience. Hence the popularity of "solutions" that maximise goodies now at the cost of future pain (hence pensions problems building up over decades, or the hatred of capital spending) or push the problem onto a nebulous distant "someone else" (NIMBYism, or Trump's tariffs.)
And yes, all this applies to immigration as well. Unless those who have retired early are willing to come out of retirement to do those jobs that we currently have to import people to do? No, thought not. (I don't do paid work for as many hours as I could, and I'm only in my early fifties, so that's me as well.)
"There's a painless solution" will always beat "this solution is going to hurt quite a bit" in debate. That's just practical politics. Many of the poor sods elected on Farage's coattails are about to get a crash course in that. Part of me suspects that Nigel knows this as well; if he ever had actual responsibility, his trousers would be permanently brown.
I wasn't singling out any parties they are all lying little shits. My point remains how can you have a democracy when despite giving a mandate for something to happen the party elected doesn't then bother trying to make it happen.
On the subject passim of your early retirement....this is one of the issues with this site that it is populated by the well off end of the population. Probably more than 50% of people will never actually be able to afford to retire, I know I am one of them and I nudge over the 40% tax rate....rent, council tax and bills would swallow however the state pension whole and still be asking for more. Being on a dc pension despite earning fairly well I would probably be looking at about 4k a year to spend on non bills and rent so would be looking at may 300£ a month for food, travel , entertainment....so yeah not retiring even when I get to the age
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
Those who have drifted off tovthe left ought to come trotting back anyway come the GE, otherwise they let a ReFukker take their seat. It iscthose who have drifted off to the right who need winning back.
One thing that everyone can agree on except Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries: Boris Johnson should not be PM again.
Boris is 8/1 to be next Tory leader and 16/1 to be next PM. Of course he should not be PM again, but it is far from impossible. The hard question in politics is not who shouldn't, but who should?
If I could pick the PM from anywhere my top five in no particular order would be: Hilary Benn, Rory, Cameron, Davey, Hunt. This is not stuff to make you feel optimistic.
Jesus what a pathetic list of clueless wankers. You are beyond hope, Centrist Grandad
This from the person who's only political belief is 'do what the fascists want and maybe they won't need to assume power '.
Where 'the fascists' = 'the voters'.
I really don't understand the mindset of people who less than a year out from losing a general election feel that what the voters really want the government to do is what the 3rd placed party in terms of votes proposed.
Do you actually believe in democracy or only when it agrees with you?
Starmer ran on a platform of deportations and cutting immigration. What did you think you were voting for?
Why not have the courage for once in your life to answer a simple question?
It's obvious from your posts that you don't believe in democracy so why not just say so. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if you weren't such a coward.
People who profess a ‘belief’ in democracy are invariably hypocrites. As soon as it is convenient they come up with excuses for why the people must be ignored.
See what I mean? Sophistry, lies and trolling. You can't say you believe in democracy because you don't. So have the guts to say so. Maybe you've got some interesting reasons for your opposition to democracy.
You're invoking the word as if you were talking about a creed rather than a description of certain aspects of particular constitutional arrangements. Of course I don't 'believe' in democracy, and neither do you. Democracy isn't a religion.
This endless sophistry is what makes you such a pointless arse. You know exactly what I mean. You are opposed to democracy. You don't seem stupid. I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for your opposition, but maybe you are just incapable of offering a sincere opinion on anything.
I'm not opposed to democracy but the problem is that the word has so many different connotations that it's ceasing to be a useful term.
People used to mock communist regimes calling themselves democratic, but the way they understood the term wasn't all that far removed from the way it is increasingly used in the West today, to encompass a set of ideological beliefs that supersede the fallible opinions of the general public, who can't be given too much of a say lest they "threaten democracy" by getting what they want.
The way you get to implement what you want is by winning elections. The AfD did not win the German election, the RN did not win the French election, Reform did not win the British election. I've got no problem with the people in County Durham getting exactly what they voted for, it sounds like you've got a problem with British people getting what they voted for.
It would be a useful exercise for you to go through the manifestos of the winning parties over the last 25 years and note their promises on immigration. Can you honestly say that people have got what they voted for?
This is some kind of blinding revelation to you? That politicians make promises they don't keep?
How old are you?
If you vote for something win and don't get it, how do you define this as democracy?
Straw man there. Humans and their institutions are flawed. A nation in which all adults can vote, all can stand for election and all can organise politically according to rules that apply to all and that elected body, with a limited term, has sovereign power within the rule of law is a democracy even if both voters and politicians sometimes lie and often fail.
No its not a strawman is a party says elect us we will do a b and c....then when elected they have a mandate to do a b and c.....if they don't even attempt to do those things that is what we non politicians called lying through their teeth and the mandate they got elected on is null and void.
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
What you describe is a democracy. It's just that sometimes this sort of democracy shows up the nature of a society through the behaviour of its elected leaders. Democracy holds up a mirror to leaders and led.
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Would you call it democracy if no party told us what they planned to do just said vote for us? I certainly wouldn't.
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
Yes, because 'democracy' is a constitutional framework, not a particular and moral way of using it.
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
But its not democracy by any definition
Democracy is voting what you want to happen
Currently we vote for what we want and its ignored that is not democracy
People keep wondering why people are losing faith in politicians...its this...it doesnt matter what we vote for...you still give us what you want to do
What we have is representative democracy.
So people vote for politicians. Who turn out to be useless. The People then vote for another lot. And so on.
The current brouhaha is because people are voting for a brand new set of shysters, instead of alternating their votes between the traditional shysters.
Trouble is that politicians are shysters because people are shysters. All of us, even the nice ones. We all think that we're entitled to goodies that we haven't earned and should be spared any inconvenience. Hence the popularity of "solutions" that maximise goodies now at the cost of future pain (hence pensions problems building up over decades, or the hatred of capital spending) or push the problem onto a nebulous distant "someone else" (NIMBYism, or Trump's tariffs.)
And yes, all this applies to immigration as well. Unless those who have retired early are willing to come out of retirement to do those jobs that we currently have to import people to do? No, thought not. (I don't do paid work for as many hours as I could, and I'm only in my early fifties, so that's me as well.)
"There's a painless solution" will always beat "this solution is going to hurt quite a bit" in debate. That's just practical politics. Many of the poor sods elected on Farage's coattails are about to get a crash course in that. Part of me suspects that Nigel knows this as well; if he ever had actual responsibility, his trousers would be permanently brown.
It's about having a bit of courage.
Currently, immigration is tied up in massive fraud, maltreatment of immigrants (debt peonage to gangs) and pile of other things. Suggest that they crack down on the sale of visas (to be fair, some offenders are being bought to book) and you will be told that too much of the economy depends on the labour in question.
With the building industry, illegal activity was allowed, un-touched through the 90s onwards.
Yes, Deliveroo might collapse if it is made liable for the shit that it and its "contractors" get up to.
Fuck 'em if they can't take the joke.
My proposal to pay for the evidence to convict the criminals (out of the criminals money) would collapse a large chunk of the British black economy. Estimates of how many people would suddenly become unemployable go into 7 figures. But the boats would stop pretty rapidly.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
The basic issue is that both Labour and Tory are essentially conceding that Farage is right yet want to claim that they can deliver the changes more competently - the Tories already having messed up badly and Labour well on the way to doing the same.
The LibDems seem to be the only ones trying to map out any sort of alternative way forward, hence why our future politics could be slowly morphing towards Reform versus LibDem, with the Tories and Labour on the margins.
So, having joined the Liberals aged 17 but left eight years back, flirting with Independents and Greens since then, I’ve just rejoined the LibDems online, but only after downing a bottle of Macon Villages before clicking on ‘pay’. So, for the next year at least, my political independence has just been compromised by oncoming inebriation. But history tells us that when the future risks being owned by the far right, sensible thinking liberals do need to make a stand, and the sooner the better. Thank me later.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
The basic issue is that both Labour and Tory are essentially conceding that Farage is right yet want to claim that they can deliver the changes more competently - the Tories already having messed up badly and Labour well on the way to doing the same.
The LibDems seem to be the only ones trying to map out any sort of alternative way forward, hence why our future politics could be slowly morphing towards Reform versus LibDem, with the Tories and Labour on the margins.
So, having joined the Liberals aged 17 but left eight years back, flirting with Independents and Greens since then, I’ve just rejoined the LibDems online, but only after downing a bottle of Macon Villages before clicking on ‘pay’. So, for the next year at least, my political independence has just been compromised by oncoming inebriation.
Yes, what Rob Ford said on his BlueSky thread seems correct; you're not going to out Farage, Farage. I don't think there is a British politician alive who could, and Starmer would be close to the bottom of the list of those who might try
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
The basic issue is that both Labour and Tory are essentially conceding that Farage is right yet want to claim that they can deliver the changes more competently - the Tories already having messed up badly and Labour well on the way to doing the same.
The LibDems seem to be the only ones trying to map out any sort of alternative way forward, hence why our future politics could be slowly morphing towards Reform versus LibDem, with the Tories and Labour on the margins.
So, having joined the Liberals aged 17 but left eight years back, flirting with Independents and Greens since then, I’ve just rejoined the LibDems online, but only after downing a bottle of Macon Villages before clicking on ‘pay’. So, for the next year at least, my political independence has just been compromised by oncoming inebriation. But history tells us that when the future risks being owned by the far right, sensible thinking liberals do need to make a stand, and the sooner the better. Thank me later.
The lib dems are not liberal though no wonder you had to join while inebriated
I enjoyed writing the header, and I'm thinking of doing an Alternative History Substack.
What do people think: good idea or bad idea?
I would say yes- after all, if you don't do it, you might always wonder "what if I had?"
Petition for you to consider what would have happened if the Last Great War of Antiquity between the Eastern Roman Empire and Sassanid Persia never takes place.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
They sold the Observer so no Observer stuff is on the website anymore.
So, duly corrected, your delayed Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a stunning sunny evening on the Isle of Skye, me and the dog gazing out over Loch Sligachan:
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
The problem with Labour trying to out-Reform Reform, is that Reform inclined voters like the cut of Farage's jib, as well as agreeing with him on policy, whilst they think Sir Keir is a wet blanket who instinctively stands for everything they hate, but is sucking up to them for votes.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
So, having joined the Liberals aged 17 but left eight years back, flirting with Independents and Greens since then, I’ve just rejoined the LibDems online, but only after downing a bottle of Macon Villages before clicking on ‘pay’. So, for the next year at least, my political independence has just been compromised by oncoming inebriation.
Something’s gone wrong at the Guardian, there’s no Sunday Rawnsley, nor any Sunday Hardman, despite the recent local elections steering us toward the end of times.
Rawnsley has little fresh to say. Unless this counts: The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government.
Simple when you know how.
Starmer and labour had a landslide victory just 9 months ago and it demonstrates just how poorly they have governed to be in the mess they are at present
It goes without saying that they would not be where they are today if it was perceived they knew how to govern and neither would Farage be writing all the headlines
It doesn't go without saying though, does it?
The Conservative government of 2019-24 failed utterly and catastropically, and that is the only fact that is relevant to understanding the 2024 election. I don't think Starmer expected to become PM, and I'm not convinced he or his party was or is ready to govern, but he was the least dismal option available. Still is, really.
As for Farage, he's writing the headlines because, before Thursday, he was playing politics on easy mode, with zero record of governing to defend. As the poor sods elected under his banner come to terms with reality and arithmetic, he will no doubt throw them to the wolves if they do anything unpopular.
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
Yes, the idea that the nation hasn't continually voted to lower immigration is for the birds. Brexit was a warning shot, I think a Reform majority will be the arrow between the eyes. Labour need to act now or they are staring oblivion in the face as their voters decamp to Reform. I could easily see Reform win a big majority on 35% with Labour down in the mid teens if they don't do anything substantially lower legal immigration and halt illegal immigration and asylum seekers not from Ukraine or Hong Kong, who I think most people agree are welcome.
Immigration will surely fall compared to recent peak but I doubt that will help Labour much. People's perceptions of immigration (and public services) are the key thing.
Comments
If someone says sign this contract we will give you 1 gb broadband then fail to deliver any broadband that is fraud. I don't see why we shouldn't hold political parties to similar standards
How can I cast a truly democratic vote when political parties are selling me on a false bill of what they will do. That means I am not voting for specific policies I would like to see enacted but a colour/tribe
Democracy is more than being able to vote, its a two part thing being able to vote and to know what you are voting for
Personally I really like our form of GE democracy for the House of Commons. The rules are the same for everyone, and voters all know the rules. Crucially the priority is winning seats not votes so each individual is part of a communal decision in which the key unit is the seat not the total national vote. So that each constituency election in a GE is also a local election. AV would make this work better.
I'll let you know how the pickle goes. It's part of a whole Nordic seafood thing I've never essayed before. I have actually bought dill
What absolutely shouldn't happen is its changed because politicians deem it advantageous to themselves which is lets face it what is most likely to happen if it was done by a party in parliament
https://sailingselkie.no/classic-danish-karrysild-curried-pickled-herring.html
2004 Blair allows A8 Accession, saying there will only be about 12-13,000 immigrants coming from Eastern Europe
Hundreds of thousands arrive
2010 Cameron says he will get immigration down below 100,000 a year
It goes up to 300,000
2016 Cameron allows a referendum, saying if Leave wins, "No ifs, no buts", we will leave. In parliament he says he will stay and oversee the departure
Leave wins a referendum which will allow us to be fully in control of immigration policy.
Cameron resigns
Politicians start to say that the result was only "advisory"
2017 GE Both major parties pledge to respect the result of the referendum
2017-2019 Labour's Brexit Secretary Starmer does all he can to block the result of the referendum, calling for a second vote. MP's vote down every deal put to them
2019 Boris wins a landslide on a pledge to "Get Brexit Done". Aha! At last, we are in charge of our own destiny, immigration can be reduced to zero if we so desire
Net migration rises to three quarters of a million and we have the crack cocaine of immigration - the small boats
If any of these politicians, none of whom are far right, had kept the promises they made, Farage would have been long retired. Instead he is about a 25% chance to be the next PM, and people who just wanted immigration capped at a level promised by centrists are branded Nazis and fascists.
If someone in real life broke this many promises to someone, then started blaming them and using their platform to belittle and insult them, surely we would think they were the bad guy. So why is it different here?
For example politics would work differently if politicians had reasons to believe that voters will vote for higher taxes for themselves for better public services and more public expenditure. Politicians believe, with reasons, that people vote for better services and lower personal taxes.
Party lists drawn up in members' ballots.
So we'd lump all of Bradford borough into one seat. Elect 3 Lab, 1 Con, 1 LD, 1 Green, 1 ReFuk and 1 "Independent".
Either that or national lists to give pure PR. With no minimum threshold.
Also remember that both Cameron and Merkel (and many other European pols) have admitted that "multiculturalism is a failure" - or an error, disaster, mistake, etc
What have they done about it? Nothing. Only the Danes - again - seem to have actually acted on this realisation (and Norway, according to @Richard_Tyndall)
Tony Blair's Labour government pressed ahead with plans to grant unrestricted access to the UK to migrants from eastern Europe despite mounting concerns among senior ministers, according to newly-released official files.
Papers released to National Archives in Kew, west London, show deputy prime minister John Prescott and foreign secretary Jack Straw both urged delay, warning of a surge in immigration unless some controls were put in place.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair-immigration-eastern-europe-national-archives-kew-b1202420.html
We need parties to be held accountable for the platform they are elected on else all we are doing is choosing a favourite team.
I am sorry you always seem fairly bright but I don't get how you can consider it to be democratic when parties are free to abandon their platform once elected.
For example a party makes a promise to make elder care a priority and make sure they are treated with dignity and respect with adequate care. They sweep the board and win 400 seats.
When in power they decide to drop that pledge and instead bring in a law that on your seventieth birthday you get euthanized.
They got an electoral mandate according to you that is democracy even though they are doing something completely different to their manifesto
After the farce of the murder trial you might have expected the officer to get some relief.
You'd never had it so good!
"There are two steps in the amendment process. Proposals to amend the Constitution must be properly adopted and ratified before they change the Constitution. First, there are two procedures for adopting the language of a proposed amendment, either by (a) Congress, by two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, or (b) national convention (which shall take place whenever two-thirds of the state legislatures collectively call for one). Second, there are two procedures for ratifying the proposed amendment, which requires three-fourths of the states' (presently 38 of 50) approval: (a) consent of the state legislatures, or (b) consent of state ratifying conventions. The ratification method is chosen by Congress for each amendment.[126] State ratifying conventions were used only once, for the Twenty-first Amendment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States#Article_V_–_Amendment_Process
(In a sense, the first 10 amendments (commonly known as the Bill of Rights) can be considered part of the original Constitution, since backers of the proposed Constitution promised them in order to gain enough support for ratification.)
Call me silly but I want to vote for policies I think will benefit people. I think parties should be able to be challenged in court for breaking their manifesto promises
Die Linke has been under surveillance by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz and some state Verfassungsschutz offices since its formation in 2007, and partly/sometimes classed as extreme left.
There's a long list of parties including the AfD and the Left that voters can and do vote for if they think the governing parties are ignoring them.
In what way do Sinn Fein "do the same" as the AfD?
He said the key to happiness in marriage is "not to have been married very long"
A lot of the discussion seems to miss out or not understand the mechanics of parliament and the amount of time each bill can take. For example, the Conservatives had the last decade or so to either propose new laws (done in spades) or remove earlier legislation deemed inappropriate (Rwanda being safe etc). There is just not the parliamentary time or resources to have the revolution that some here want. And there is not the money, skills or resources for government departments / local authorities to effect any changes if they were successful.
At best you have to tweak at the margins, something the new Reform councillors will start finding out next week. And good luck to them. Anyone wanting to change the world should jump on the current Reform bandwagon and try their luck at the change they claim they want. Anything other than getting elected is just hot air.
As Reform celebrates its victories at this week’s local elections, their success can partly be attributed to the reputational damage suffered by the major parties, receiving better ratings on all key attributes apart from being tolerant:
https://x.com/opiniumresearch/status/1918744612048380027?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The answer to immoral political parties and politicians is more moral political parties and politicians and the answer to immoral voters is more moral voters. This requires acts of the will on behalf of lots of people. It can't be just organised into place.
The solution to bad stuff is good stuff. The forms of democracy hold the boxing ring; don't undermine the structure on account of bad actors. It at least provides a means of getting rid of the lot you on't like.
Democracy only works if we can vote for what we prefer and it at least tries to be implemented
The democracy you describe is vote for what you want to happen just don't expect us to bother trying to do what you voted for. Sorry I dont see that as democracy
Like AfD there are more moderate voices in there, but there are also Putinists.
Any party in Europe that sees Russia as a friend is a clear and present danger.
Democracy is voting what you want to happen
Currently we vote for what we want and its ignored that is not democracy
People keep wondering why people are losing faith in politicians...its this...it doesnt matter what we vote for...you still give us what you want to do
I do think we have the once in a lifetime opportunity to Macronise the political centre. Not under Davey, it would require another (Daisy is probably next in line). If politics is coalescing around liberal internationalism vs national populism, then neither the Tories nor Labour fit. We are fighting on a different axis of the political compass now.
Otherwise it's just cliché.
Cooper is confident, articulate, conveys “leadership”, and has decent political savvy.
Footnote: You would like the promises to be actionable in court. Good luck. It won't happen.
If you want to defeat the Reform, understand then. Yes. Then come up with policies that will actually deal with the issues at the core of why Reform is successful. They can be progressive policies - but it needs to be a coherent plan, that is sellable.
I just don't get how we can have a democracy when we don't know what we are actually voting for which is the current situation. I have mentioned I haven't voted since 2010....that is because I became disillusion when the coalition came up with a "manifesto" that I would have voted against but my vote counted towards their mandate
So people vote for politicians. Who turn out to be useless. The People then vote for another lot. And so on.
The current brouhaha is because people are voting for a brand new set of shysters, instead of alternating their votes between the traditional shysters.
Unless he intends to overthrow the constitution (which of course can't be ruled out) he cannot run for a third term, end of discussion, nothing to speculate about.
Go to https://observer.co.uk/
Do you think when an artist is selected for a bond theme they’re issued with a style guide including obligatory keys, chord sequences and instruments?
All bond tunes must be minor key. All but a scarce few must be andante or adagio (live and let die, die another day and the living daylights are exceptions). All must contain a sequence of chromatics starting at so: so, le, la.
Skyfall in particular is essentially the same in tonality and structure as Diamonds are Forever.
I should add she promised to 'love, honour and obey' me in our Church of Scotland ceremony but has told me on many occassions that she had confided in the Good Lord and He had confirmed obey was not required !!!!!
The Tories have yet to learn that you don’t beat Nigel Farage by trying to be a tribute act to him.
Remarking upon the risks of being mesmerised by Faragism, one veteran of the Blair and Brown cabinets says: “If we spend the next four years obsessing about losing, we’ll be petrified into a paralysis which will kill us.” One of the many problems with trying to contain Faragism by leaning into it is that this repels other kinds of folk. Polling suggests that for every 2024 voter that Labour has shed to Reform, it has lost two or three to the centrist Lib Dems and the leftist Greens. Many Labour MPs worry that No 10 is already so preoccupied with Reform-switchers that it appears oblivious to the voters jumping ship from the other side of Labour’s listing boat.
Before it is anything else, the Reform surge is a howl of fury with the state of things from voters who feel repeatedly let down by mainstream politicians. The answer to that is not to become more like Reform: it is to be more urgent and convincing about making reforms. Being the change that it promised to be is the only viable path to recuperation for Labour. The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government. Team Starmer won’t deliver that if they allow Nigel Farage to live in their heads.
And yes, all this applies to immigration as well. Unless those who have retired early are willing to come out of retirement to do those jobs that we currently have to import people to do? No, thought not. (I don't do paid work for as many hours as I could, and I'm only in my early fifties, so that's me as well.)
"There's a painless solution" will always beat "this solution is going to hurt quite a bit" in debate. That's just practical politics. Many of the poor sods elected on Farage's coattails are about to get a crash course in that. Part of me suspects that Nigel knows this as well; if he ever had actual responsibility, his trousers would be permanently brown.
The best antidote to the politics of grievance is good government.
Simple when you know how.
He'd be better off tacking to the left
What do people think: good idea or bad idea?
Is this decade basically Russia rerunning 1989 in its favour? It increasingly seems that way.
It goes without saying that they would not be where they are today if it was perceived they knew how to govern and neither would Farage be writing all the headlines
On the subject passim of your early retirement....this is one of the issues with this site that it is populated by the well off end of the population. Probably more than 50% of people will never actually be able to afford to retire, I know I am one of them and I nudge over the 40% tax rate....rent, council tax and bills would swallow however the state pension whole and still be asking for more. Being on a dc pension despite earning fairly well I would probably be looking at about 4k a year to spend on non bills and rent so would be looking at may 300£ a month for food, travel , entertainment....so yeah not retiring even when I get to the age
Currently, immigration is tied up in massive fraud, maltreatment of immigrants (debt peonage to gangs) and pile of other things. Suggest that they crack down on the sale of visas (to be fair, some offenders are being bought to book) and you will be told that too much of the economy depends on the labour in question.
With the building industry, illegal activity was allowed, un-touched through the 90s onwards.
Yes, Deliveroo might collapse if it is made liable for the shit that it and its "contractors" get up to.
Fuck 'em if they can't take the joke.
My proposal to pay for the evidence to convict the criminals (out of the criminals money) would collapse a large chunk of the British black economy. Estimates of how many people would suddenly become unemployable go into 7 figures. But the boats would stop pretty rapidly.
The LibDems seem to be the only ones trying to map out any sort of alternative way forward, hence why our future politics could be slowly morphing towards Reform versus LibDem, with the Tories and Labour on the margins.
So, having joined the Liberals aged 17 but left eight years back, flirting with Independents and Greens since then, I’ve just rejoined the LibDems online, but only after downing a bottle of Macon Villages before clicking on ‘pay’. So, for the next year at least, my political independence has just been compromised by oncoming inebriation. But history tells us that when the future risks being owned by the far right, sensible thinking liberals do need to make a stand, and the sooner the better. Thank me later.
The Conservative government of 2019-24 failed utterly and catastropically, and that is the only fact that is relevant to understanding the 2024 election. I don't think Starmer expected to become PM, and I'm not convinced he or his party was or is ready to govern, but he was the least dismal option available. Still is, really.
As for Farage, he's writing the headlines because, before Thursday, he was playing politics on easy mode, with zero record of governing to defend. As the poor sods elected under his banner come to terms with reality and arithmetic, he will no doubt throw them to the wolves if they do anything unpopular.
People's perceptions of immigration (and public services) are the key thing.