BTW I think we may have finally stumbled on a workable definition of "demos". If the majority of voters would vote for someone with their own general political leanings but from another region over someone with the same general political leanings from their own region, you have one. If they wouldn't, you don't. Ignoring the consequences for the EU for a minute, does that catch what people are trying to say?
It doesn't capture what I'm trying to say.
My definition of a demos would be an acceptance by most of those voting for the losing candidate that the winning candidate had a mandate to speak for them on the matters for which they were elected.
I'm not sure the US had that, especially at the height of the Tea Party crazy.
The word "most" was included to cater for a minority of nutters. And it is possible for a demos to disintegrate. A number of our north British posters would assert that strongly.
The US crazification factor is typically rated at around 27%, so if the opposition only gets 47% or less you'll often have a majority that doesn't accept the winner from the other side. In the US case it seems like the demos disintegrates partway through the first term of any Democratic president then re-emerges when a Republican gets elected. I can see how it could grow or decline over decades but to come and go like this seems a bit odd, so I think there must be something wrong with the definition.
BTW I think we may have finally stumbled on a workable definition of "demos". If the majority of voters would vote for someone with their own general political leanings but from another region over someone with different political leanings from their own region, you have one. If they wouldn't, you don't. Ignoring the consequences for the EU for a minute, does that catch what people are trying to say?
The construct is a false one, because everyone is effectively forced to state a preference. I would prefer not to vote for someone to fill this role at all. My choice would be to abstain to avoid giving the final winner any unnecessary legitimacy. However, were I to be forced to state a preference, it would be for the best candidate regardless of nationality -that's just common sense.
It would be the same if I were forced to state a preference for who I wanted to be the President of the World. That doesn't mean the World is a 'demos' that I subscribe to.
"People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland"
This is not the US you know. The PM could already be a "foreigner", and indeed the leader of the Green Party was born in Australia.
Iirc Andrew Bonar-Law is the only PM not born in the UK.
Shelburne and Wellington were both born in Ireland, before the UK came into existence...
I see your pedantry, and raise you that neither of those was PM.
In which case, neither was Bonar Law, as his term also predates the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937...
Hmm, I'm pretty sure it was formally recognised prior to that, just not in legislation.
'The Act is notable for several reasons; it was the first Act of Parliament to directly deal with ministerial salaries, and also the first Act to provide a salary for the Prime Minister, and for the Leader of the Opposition. As well as being only the second time the Prime Minister has been mentioned in a statute, the Act was also the first statute to recognise the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministers_of_the_Crown_Act_1937 So Chamberlain was the first PM...
BTW I think we may have finally stumbled on a workable definition of "demos". If the majority of voters would vote for someone with their own general political leanings but from another region over someone with different political leanings from their own region, you have one. If they wouldn't, you don't. Ignoring the consequences for the EU for a minute, does that catch what people are trying to say?
The construct is a false one, because everyone is effectively forced to state a preference. I would prefer not to vote for someone to fill this role at all. My choice would be to abstain to avoid giving the final winner any unnecessary legitimacy. However, were I to be forced to state a preference, it would be for the best candidate regardless of nationality -that's just common sense.
It would be the same if I were forced to state a preference for who I wanted to be the President of the World. That doesn't mean the World is a 'demos' that I subscribe to.
For these purposes I guess I'd group abstaining or spoiling your ballot paper the same as "vote for the guy who disagrees with you". On this definition if there was a candidate on the ballot who you agreed with and thought had the necessary leadership abilities, but you couldn't bring yourself to vote for them because they were from a different region, you'd be a data point in favour of "no demos".
"People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland"
This is not the US you know. The PM could already be a "foreigner", and indeed the leader of the Green Party was born in Australia.
Iirc Andrew Bonar-Law is the only PM not born in the UK.
Shelburne and Wellington were both born in Ireland, before the UK came into existence...
I see your pedantry, and raise you that neither of those was PM.
In which case, neither was Bonar Law, as his term also predates the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937...
Hmm, I'm pretty sure it was formally recognised prior to that, just not in legislation.
'The Act is notable for several reasons; it was the first Act of Parliament to directly deal with ministerial salaries, and also the first Act to provide a salary for the Prime Minister, and for the Leader of the Opposition. As well as being only the second time the Prime Minister has been mentioned in a statute, the Act was also the first statute to recognise the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministers_of_the_Crown_Act_1937 So Chamberlain was the first PM...
Prime Minister was listed in the order of precedence from 1905 it seems.
(Alas, if only I'd said North-West European archipelago instead of UK I'd have escaped Rod's scrutiny)
Clegg on the local news - says Lib Dems need to be 'loud and proud' of the Conservatives' achievements in office. OK, so that last bit was my interpretation.
British people should be free to live and work anywhere in the EU
Agree: 58% Disagree: 23%
People from EU countries should be free to live and work in the UK
Agree: 38% Disagree: 44%
So that's 20% of the British population who think that it should be one rule for Brits, another rule for everyone else.
One of my friends recently pointed out another hypocrisy.
Britain has an empire that controls a significant chunk of the world, a few centuries later, the same country complains about immigrants coming over and changing the country.
Gladstone surely ... though I preferred brown bag!
Yup Gladstone.
Gladstone was popular on what is now an unimaginable scale, they sold actual merchandise of him.
(Of course some of this was down to era. Hence Joe Chamberlain having a statue in Birmingham).
Mind you, the working classes didn't get a vote ... I came across a report of his last speeches in the Midlothian Campaign. Wouldn't get Messrs Cameron or Clegg into an open public meeting with such acclamation now.
On statues, they still do it in Glasgow (Edinburgh is not so hasty, it prefers literary folk and Enlightenment thinkers)
Comments
(Looking it up Wellington was born in Dublin while it was still the Kingdom of Ireland)
Get him lined up for 2020!
It would be the same if I were forced to state a preference for who I wanted to be the President of the World. That doesn't mean the World is a 'demos' that I subscribe to.
My chat up lines are legendary, they are nearly as awesome as my taste in music.
To quote someone else
"You don't need a wing man, you're going to need a paramedic"
My favourite one is this one
"Your eyes are like spanners, every time you look at me, my nuts tighten"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministers_of_the_Crown_Act_1937
So Chamberlain was the first PM...
(Alas, if only I'd said North-West European archipelago instead of UK I'd have escaped Rod's scrutiny)
Introduced Catholic Emancipation.
Great: thank you.
I suppose I should have referred to 'the declaration.'
42% say we should leave the EU
40% say we should stay
http://comres.co.uk/polls/ITV_News_Index_5th_June_2014.pdf
Was 46/24 last time ComRes asked the question
Adam Boulton @adamboultonSKY 59s
Newark bound to join @joncraig @AmberSkyNews @JasonFarrellSky for full coverage of tonight's by election Result ETA 0300
Nope. Not him.
British people should be free to live and work anywhere in the EU
Agree: 58%
Disagree: 23%
People from EU countries should be free to live and work in the UK
Agree: 38%
Disagree: 44%
So that's 20% of the British population who think that it should be one rule for Brits, another rule for everyone else.
In the subsamples, London is out of touch with the rest of the country (55% say stay in)
72% Immigrants treated too generously
78% Immigrants should only get benefits if theyve paid in
I would have a more favourable impression of the Lib Dems if Nick Clegg was not their leader
22% Yes
50% No
Britain has an empire that controls a significant chunk of the world, a few centuries later, the same country complains about immigrants coming over and changing the country.
This poll is not past vote weighted, the last ComRes poll was.
(Of course some of this was down to era. Hence Joe Chamberlain having a statue in Birmingham).
On statues, they still do it in Glasgow (Edinburgh is not so hasty, it prefers literary folk and Enlightenment thinkers)
http://www.glasgowsculpture.com/pg_images.php?sub=donald_dewar
He's a proper geek like me.
He calls Salmond a Borg, Sturgeon a Dalek
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/05/ukip-mep-coburn-borg-alex-salmond-dictator_n_5452945.html