@DanHannanMEP: In Denmark, as in UK, Twitter Lefties had convinced themselves that they represented the whole electorate, and are now outraged. #valg2015
Well this is the least legitimate, derived from the least representative parliament of them all.
That claim is transparently false, even if one accepts the premises on which it is based. In 2005, the Labour Party won a majority of 66 with 35.2% vote, compared to 32.4% for the Conservatives. At this election, the turnout was higher than in 2005, the Conservatives won more votes and a higher percentage of the vote, and had a larger lead over the next largest party than Labour had in 2005, yet won a majority of 12.
Meanwhile, we have to recognise that our electoral system is not fit for purpose, and that no single political party has any moral justification for imposing its views on the rest of us.
Nonsense. This government has the confidence and supply of the House of Commons. It is legitimate. On your argument, no British government since 1935, and perhaps not even that has been legitimate.
Well this is the least legitimate, derived from the least representative parliament of them all.
The 2005-10 Parliament was more disproportionate. Labour won 55% of seats with 36% of the vote.
Nope this is the worst. So far at least. A truly dreadful parliament already.
If you need to create say 400 new Tory peers to deal with the undemocratic Lab and Lib Dems imbalance in the Lords, I'm willing to serve as a peer.
Where are all those peers going to fit? The House of Lords isn't a stadium you know.
Now there's a suggestion for the renovation work.
Wembley Stadium.
Wembley Stadium is my suggested location for the Imperial Senate for an expanded "Commonwealth Plus" including the whole Anglosphere. I would also create a "Grand Army of the Commonwealth"
Something like this, from the Royal Box (assuming Wembley has one):
I need a stadium for my Imperial Senate, as apportioning seats across the Commonwealth at the same density as Westminster, I get 40,000 Imperial Senators! :
Meanwhile, we have to recognise that our electoral system is not fit for purpose, and that no single political party has any moral justification for imposing its views on the rest of us.
Nonsense. This government has the confidence and supply of the House of Commons. It is legitimate. On your argument, no British government since 1935, and perhaps not even that has been legitimate.
Absolutely right, Mr Town. None of them has been legitimate. Not morally. Only from a narrow, legalistic point of view. Illegitimate the lot of them!
O/T (ish), if UKIP do now go down in flames as a coherent party, I wonder how long that will take to filter through to voters?
I'm still of the view that, for a lot of voters (but by no means a majority), they're a more socially-acceptable BNP without the violence/weirdness - a way to express distaste towards foreigners and indeed non-white Brits (especially Muslims) at the ballot box. I don't think that sentiment is going anywhere, even if the party tears itself apart.
Meanwhile, we have to recognise that our electoral system is not fit for purpose, and that no single political party has any moral justification for imposing its views on the rest of us.
Nonsense. This government has the confidence and supply of the House of Commons. It is legitimate. On your argument, no British government since 1935, and perhaps not even that has been legitimate.
Well this is the least legitimate, derived from the least representative parliament of them all.
The 2005-10 Parliament was more disproportionate. Labour won 55% of seats with 36% of the vote.
Nope this is the worst. So far at least. A truly dreadful parliament already.
I know - Ed REALLY REALLY was crap - only 232 Lab MPs!
If the House of Lords is to be proportional, we need fewer Bishops and more Imams.
NO. Get rid of all religious people from the Lords..
That Iran comparison is always (a bit unfairly) wheeled out for the argument against the bishops. Even though I'm not at all religious, I feel the bishops offer a useful voice. I wouldn't mind popping a couple of other poo-bahs with funny hats in there too, if it came to it.
A bit like the Lords as a whole. In principle it's a terrible idea, but in practice it sort of works, on the whole. Plus, even though I'm a republican and a committed democrat (both uncapitalised, obvs), a part of me would really hate to do away with all of the history and general gaiety, pomp and whatnot. Like the old girl they sit in. I'd happily ditch a nuclear deterrent (an issue on which I'm still not wholly decided) to fix up the HoP.
Iran's Upper House is called the "Assembly of Experts"
If you need to create say 400 new Tory peers to deal with the undemocratic Lab and Lib Dems imbalance in the Lords, I'm willing to serve as a peer.
Where are all those peers going to fit? The House of Lords isn't a stadium you know.
Now there's a suggestion for the renovation work.
Wembley Stadium.
Wembley Stadium is my suggested location for the Imperial Senate for an expanded "Commonwealth Plus" including the whole Anglosphere. I would also create a "Grand Army of the Commonwealth"
Something like this, from the Royal Box (assuming Wembley has one):
I need a stadium for my Imperial Senate, as apportioning seats across the Commonwealth at the same density as Westminster, I get 40,000 Imperial Senators! :
"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
Meanwhile, we have to recognise that our electoral system is not fit for purpose, and that no single political party has any moral justification for imposing its views on the rest of us.
Nonsense. This government has the confidence and supply of the House of Commons. It is legitimate. On your argument, no British government since 1935, and perhaps not even that has been legitimate.
Well this is the least legitimate, derived from the least representative parliament of them all.
The 2005-10 Parliament was more disproportionate. Labour won 55% of seats with 36% of the vote.
Nope this is the worst. So far at least. A truly dreadful parliament already.
I know - Ed REALLY REALLY was crap - only 232 Lab MPs!
If you need to create say 400 new Tory peers to deal with the undemocratic Lab and Lib Dems imbalance in the Lords, I'm willing to serve as a peer.
Where are all those peers going to fit? The House of Lords isn't a stadium you know.
Now there's a suggestion for the renovation work.
Wembley Stadium.
Wembley Stadium is my suggested location for the Imperial Senate for an expanded "Commonwealth Plus" including the whole Anglosphere. I would also create a "Grand Army of the Commonwealth"
Something like this, from the Royal Box (assuming Wembley has one):
I need a stadium for my Imperial Senate, as apportioning seats across the Commonwealth at the same density as Westminster, I get 40,000 Imperial Senators! :
"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
I wouldn't go down that path! We will make it the most democratic Empire ever
Absolutely right, Mr Town. None of them has been legitimate. Not morally. Only from a narrow, legalistic point of view. Illegitimate the lot of them!
Interesting. So presumably the Attlee Government had no moral right to pass the National Health Service Act 1946 or to nationalise the coal industry, and those opposed would have had every right to have used force to frsutrate the enactments of the "illegitimate" Parliament of 1945-1950?
If the House of Lords is to be proportional, we need fewer Bishops and more Imams.
NO. Get rid of all religious people from the Lords..
That Iran comparison is always (a bit unfairly) wheeled out for the argument against the bishops. Even though I'm not at all religious, I feel the bishops offer a useful voice. I wouldn't mind popping a couple of other poo-bahs with funny hats in there too, if it came to it.
A bit like the Lords as a whole. In principle it's a terrible idea, but in practice it sort of works, on the whole. Plus, even though I'm a republican and a committed democrat (both uncapitalised, obvs), a part of me would really hate to do away with all of the history and general gaiety, pomp and whatnot. Like the old girl they sit in. I'd happily ditch a nuclear deterrent (an issue on which I'm still not wholly decided) to fix up the HoP.
Iran's Upper House is called the "Assembly of Experts"
They also have a political party called the Combatant Clergy Association.
Sorry I edited my post before yours. In Moscow Putin got 46.9%. His next lowest was Kaliningrad on 52.5%. (Of course on the Crimea principle Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg should be returned to Germany.)
@MTimT: problem is us plebs aren't historically well-connected enough, are we? I do wonder what kind of folk memory exists within the Great & The Good. What the Queen Mum could remember ... did she really talk to courtiers who told her first-hand about The Duchess of Richmond's Ball to celebrate the victory at Waterloo, as I seem to recall seeing somewhere after her death?
My two closest examples of that were my father's piano teacher was a student of Franz Listz, and my work colleagues' grammar school English lit teacher was William Golding.
It's in Danish but the figures speak volumes. An extraordinary result for the Danske Folkeparti which has been in existence for less than 20 years though much of the original leadership was in Mogens Glistrups' Progress Party which finished second in the 1973 election so the wheel turns full circle and Venstre has been marginalised.
The Social Democrats haven't done that badly but their main allies Radikale Venstre and the Socilistiske Folkeparti have been hammered.
For all the cheering from some on here, look at the Conservatives - just six seats for a party which provided the Prime Minister and was the third largest not so long ago.
So does Kristian Dahl become Statsminister - there's no tradition the Venstre leader has to be Prime Minister of a borgerlig Government so he could.
Sorry I edited my post before yours. In Moscow Putin got 46.9%. His next lowest was Kaliningrad on 52.5%. (Of course on the Crimea principle Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg should be returned to Germany.)
I think the germans were all deported at the end of the war, so Kalingrad is now ethnically Russian and unlikely to vote to leave Russia.
"The election was a decisive vote against metropolitan liberalism – against mass immigration, further European integration, and the high-churn society that discomforts so many people."
It's in Danish but the figures speak volumes. An extraordinary result for the Danske Folkeparti which has been in existence for less than 20 years though much of the original leadership was in Mogens Glistrups' Progress Party which finished second in the 1973 election so the wheel turns full circle and Venstre has been marginalised.
The Social Democrats haven't done that badly but their main allies Radikale Venstre and the Socilistiske Folkeparti have been hammered.
For all the cheering from some on here, look at the Conservatives - just six seats for a party which provided the Prime Minister and was the third largest not so long ago.
So does Kristian Dahl become Statsminister - there's no tradition the Venstre leader has to be Prime Minister of a borgerlig Government so he could.
Meanwhile, we have to recognise that our electoral system is not fit for purpose, and that no single political party has any moral justification for imposing its views on the rest of us.
Nonsense. This government has the confidence and supply of the House of Commons. It is legitimate. On your argument, no British government since 1935, and perhaps not even that has been legitimate.
Well this is the least legitimate, derived from the least representative parliament of them all.
The 2005-10 Parliament was more disproportionate. Labour won 55% of seats with 36% of the vote.
Nope this is the worst. So far at least. A truly dreadful parliament already.
How is it worse, or is that just your subjective assessment, rather than based on how disproportionate it actually is?
I need a stadium for my Imperial Senate, as apportioning seats across the Commonwealth at the same density as Westminster, I get 40,000 Imperial Senators! :
Given the population sizes, about 34,000 of them would be Indian and about 1700 would be British. So it's going in Delhi then.
(Sorry, that;s a bit mean. But whenever somebody starts going on about Imperial Commonwealths, I always wait for them to work out the math. India is HUGE)
A good choice. Genial and charming, with a good backing of trade unionists. One key for the In campaign is to GOTV amongst working people, as the EU has evolved into an institution that protects workers against exploitation. A lot of europhobes have a nakedly right wing agenda to reverse the social protections that come from Europe.
Sorry I edited my post before yours. In Moscow Putin got 46.9%. His next lowest was Kaliningrad on 52.5%. (Of course on the Crimea principle Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg should be returned to Germany.)
I think the germans were all deported at the end of the war, so Kalingrad is now ethnically Russian and unlikely to vote to leave Russia.
I'm sure you're right about that, but haven't the Russians been stressing how Crimea itself, not merely the makeup of the people there, is intrinsically, historically Russian, which would presumably apply.
To the Russia fans out there, the above is only a momentary piece of idle speculation, I don't actually require a lecture about how I'm been brainwashed by western media to condemn the pure saints of Russia by making such a no doubt spurious and offensive comparison with the glorious return of Crimea and how irredentism is all the rage thesedays, in response. Many thanks.
A good choice. Genial and charming, with a good backing of trade unionists. One key for the In campaign is to GOTV amongst working people, as the EU has evolved into an institution that protects workers against exploitation. A lot of europhobes have a nakedly right wing agenda to reverse the social protections that come from Europe.
The EU is no particular fan of trade unions though. It will be interesting to see if any break ranks and support out on the basis that mass immigration is depressing wages.
@SamCoatesTimes: Tonight we reveal x-party group of MPs backed by a major Ukip donor have begun preparations to launch the campaign to take Britain out of EU
I need a stadium for my Imperial Senate, as apportioning seats across the Commonwealth at the same density as Westminster, I get 40,000 Imperial Senators! :
Given the population sizes, about 34,000 of them would be Indian and about 1700 would be British. So it's going in Delhi then.
(Sorry, that;s a bit mean. But whenever somebody starts going on about Imperial Commonwealths, I always wait for them to work out the math. India is HUGE)
I make it 12,450 (31%) for India - remember this is an expanded Commonwealth inc. all English-speaking countries and the EU, and "just for a bit of fun", some extra bits of territory controlled by EU member-states in Europe, and the UK and US worldwide, at roughly the time of the Imperial Conference in 1921 and Statute of Wesminster in 1931.
London will be the Royal Capital of HMQ, there would be no question of that, and England will have be designated homeland of the English language.
Administratively, yes you could have a rotating capital every five years (after each Senate Election) - Washington for the Americas, Cape Town for Africa, London for Europe, Delhi for Asia and Canberra for Australasia.
Meanwhile, we have to recognise that our electoral system is not fit for purpose, and that no single political party has any moral justification for imposing its views on the rest of us.
Nonsense. This government has the confidence and supply of the House of Commons. It is legitimate. On your argument, no British government since 1935, and perhaps not even that has been legitimate.
Well this is the least legitimate, derived from the least representative parliament of them all.
The 2005-10 Parliament was more disproportionate. Labour won 55% of seats with 36% of the vote.
Nope this is the worst. So far at least. A truly dreadful parliament already.
How is it worse, or is that just your subjective assessment, rather than based on how disproportionate it actually is?
Jonathan is referring to how crap Labour's performance really was
@SamCoatesTimes: Paterson/Jenkin/Baker//Hoey/Hopkins/Stringer//Carswell/Wheeler form the "exploratory committee" for creating "No" camp. Dominic Cummings I/c
Sorry I edited my post before yours. In Moscow Putin got 46.9%. His next lowest was Kaliningrad on 52.5%. (Of course on the Crimea principle Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg should be returned to Germany.)
I think the germans were all deported at the end of the war, so Kalingrad is now ethnically Russian and unlikely to vote to leave Russia.
Koenigsberg is part of Commonwealth Plus, by virtue of it being a European territory of an EU-member state at the time of the Imperial Conference/Statute of Westminster
The EU is no particular fan of trade unions though. It will be interesting to see if any break ranks and support out on the basis that mass immigration is depressing wages.
Indeed. In International Transport Workers' Federation v Viking Line ABP [2008] ICR 741, the Court of Justice held that companies have a directly effective EU law right enforceable against trades unions to move their place of establishment for the purpose of undercutting pay and conditions.
It seems that Denmark has the equivalent of the "Shy Tory" (which may be why the opinion polls were out).
QUOTE Peter Skaarup, a senior Danish People’s Party MP, was asked by Danish media outlet The Local whether the party had ever expected such an election result, and said:
No. It’s gone beyond my wildest expectations. I know we often fare better in these elections than the polls suggest since people often aren’t willing to admit that they vote for the Danish People’s Party, but it really does look fantastic so far.” END-QUOTE
@SamCoatesTimes: Paterson/Jenkin/Baker//Hoey/Hopkins/Stringer//Carswell/Wheeler form the "exploratory committee" for creating "No" camp. Dominic Cummings I/c
I hope Cameron recommends "Out" - I don't look forward to having to side with that lot if he is "In".
@SamCoatesTimes: Paterson/Jenkin/Baker//Hoey/Hopkins/Stringer//Carswell/Wheeler form the "exploratory committee" for creating "No" camp. Dominic Cummings I/c
Presumably Owen Paterson (Con) Bernard Jenkin (Con) Steve Baker (Con) Kate Hoey (Lab) Kelvin Kopkins (Lab) Graham Stringer (Lab) Douglas Carswell (UKIP) Stuart Wheeler (UKIP donor).
@SamCoatesTimes: Paterson/Jenkin/Baker//Hoey/Hopkins/Stringer//Carswell/Wheeler form the "exploratory committee" for creating "No" camp. Dominic Cummings I/c
I hope Cameron recommends "Out" - I don't look forward to having to side with that lot if he is "In".
So you're just doing the opposite of what Cameron recommends? How very adult.
@SamCoatesTimes: Paterson/Jenkin/Baker//Hoey/Hopkins/Stringer//Carswell/Wheeler form the "exploratory committee" for creating "No" camp. Dominic Cummings I/c
I hope Cameron recommends "Out" - I don't look forward to having to side with that lot if he is "In".
So you're just doing the opposite of what Cameron recommends? How very adult.
I did the same in the AV referenndum and voted against Clegg, so at least I am showing consistency.
The EU is no particular fan of trade unions though. It will be interesting to see if any break ranks and support out on the basis that mass immigration is depressing wages.
Indeed. In International Transport Workers' Federation v Viking Line ABP [2008] ICR 741, the Court of Justice held that companies have a directly effective EU law right enforceable against trades unions to move their place of establishment for the purpose of undercutting pay and conditions.
I had Viking Line (and Laval) in mind. But they are hardly pillars of clarity.
Sorry I edited my post before yours. In Moscow Putin got 46.9%. His next lowest was Kaliningrad on 52.5%. (Of course on the Crimea principle Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg should be returned to Germany.)
I think the germans were all deported at the end of the war, so Kalingrad is now ethnically Russian and unlikely to vote to leave Russia.
I'm sure you're right about that, but haven't the Russians been stressing how Crimea itself, not merely the makeup of the people there, is intrinsically, historically Russian, which would presumably apply.
To the Russia fans out there, the above is only a momentary piece of idle speculation, I don't actually require a lecture about how I'm been brainwashed by western media to condemn the pure saints of Russia by making such a no doubt spurious and offensive comparison with the glorious return of Crimea and how irredentism is all the rage thesedays, in response. Many thanks.
A good choice. Genial and charming, with a good backing of trade unionists. One key for the In campaign is to GOTV amongst working people, as the EU has evolved into an institution that protects workers against exploitation. A lot of europhobes have a nakedly right wing agenda to reverse the social protections that come from Europe.
The EU is no particular fan of trade unions though. It will be interesting to see if any break ranks and support out on the basis that mass immigration is depressing wages.
Indeed I think that the EU social chapter and related legislation such as the EWTD and compulsory 4 weeks annual holiday have largely sidelined Trade Unions by taking over their functions.
I had Viking Line (and Laval) in mind. But they are hardly pillars of clarity.
Very true, but they are certainly odes to judicial supremacy! The basic idea is that it is for the court to decide whether or not a strike goes no further than necessary to pursue a legitimate aim, which cannot be of a purely economic character. In principle, it opens the way for the court to overturn every piece of national legislation on industrial relations.
Sorry I edited my post before yours. In Moscow Putin got 46.9%. His next lowest was Kaliningrad on 52.5%. (Of course on the Crimea principle Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg should be returned to Germany.)
I think the germans were all deported at the end of the war, so Kalingrad is now ethnically Russian and unlikely to vote to leave Russia.
I'm sure you're right about that, but haven't the Russians been stressing how Crimea itself, not merely the makeup of the people there, is intrinsically, historically Russian, which would presumably apply.
To the Russia fans out there, the above is only a momentary piece of idle speculation, I don't actually require a lecture about how I'm been brainwashed by western media to condemn the pure saints of Russia by making such a no doubt spurious and offensive comparison with the glorious return of Crimea and how irredentism is all the rage thesedays, in response. Many thanks.
Crimea, along with Ukraine itself, was under German "protection" according to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, so it also part of Commonwealth Plus
@SamCoatesTimes: Paterson/Jenkin/Baker//Hoey/Hopkins/Stringer//Carswell/Wheeler form the "exploratory committee" for creating "No" camp. Dominic Cummings I/c
Presumably Owen Paterson (Con) Bernard Jenkin (Con) Steve Baker (Con) Kate Hoey (Lab) Kelvin Kopkins (Lab) Graham Stringer (Lab) Douglas Carswell (UKIP) Stuart Wheeler (UKIP donor).
Neither UKIP man great allies of Farage...
I appreciate it's a typo, but ... Kelvin Kopkins would be a great name. Particularly for an author, sportsperson, model, actor or pornographer. Doesn't have the right alphabetical aura to be PM material, though.
A good choice. Genial and charming, with a good backing of trade unionists. One key for the In campaign is to GOTV amongst working people, as the EU has evolved into an institution that protects workers against exploitation. A lot of europhobes have a nakedly right wing agenda to reverse the social protections that come from Europe.
The EU is no particular fan of trade unions though. It will be interesting to see if any break ranks and support out on the basis that mass immigration is depressing wages.
Indeed I think that the EU social chapter and related legislation such as the EWTD and compulsory 4 weeks annual holiday have largely sidelined Trade Unions by taking over their functions.
I think it's indicative of an EU that doesn't really speak the language of trade unionism (or freedom of association). It is noticable in the way that the UK has implemented various directives (e.g. on collective consultation) that we have had to do some work bolting it onto trade unions rather than establish German-style works' councils.
(There was some criticism of the suggestion we should have works' councils a couple of weeks ago on here. I think it is obvious enough that we shouldn't had trade unions and works councils, but the choice as between them is more finely balanced.)
@SamCoatesTimes: Paterson/Jenkin/Baker//Hoey/Hopkins/Stringer//Carswell/Wheeler form the "exploratory committee" for creating "No" camp. Dominic Cummings I/c
Presumably Owen Paterson (Con) Bernard Jenkin (Con) Steve Baker (Con) Kate Hoey (Lab) Kelvin Kopkins (Lab) Graham Stringer (Lab) Douglas Carswell (UKIP) Stuart Wheeler (UKIP donor).
Neither UKIP man great allies of Farage...
I appreciate it's a typo, but ... Kelvin Kopkins would be a great name. Particularly for an author, sportsperson, model, actor or pornographer. Doesn't have the right alphabetical aura to be PM material, though.
I need a stadium for my Imperial Senate, as apportioning seats across the Commonwealth at the same density as Westminster, I get 40,000 Imperial Senators! :
Given the population sizes, about 34,000 of them would be Indian and about 1700 would be British. So it's going in Delhi then.
(Sorry, that;s a bit mean. But whenever somebody starts going on about Imperial Commonwealths, I always wait for them to work out the math. India is HUGE)
I make it 12,450 (31%) for India - remember this is an expanded Commonwealth inc. all English-speaking countries and the EU, and "just for a bit of fun", some extra bits of territory controlled by EU member-states in Europe, and the UK and US worldwide, at roughly the time of the Imperial Conference in 1921 and Statute of Wesminster in 1931.
London will be the Royal Capital of HMQ, there would be no question of that, and England will have be designated homeland of the English language.
Administratively, yes you could have a rotating capital every five years (after each Senate Election) - Washington for the Americas, Cape Town for Africa, London for Europe, Delhi for Asia and Canberra for Australasia.
If India has 12,500 senators, then USA has about 3,000, Germany about 800, UK about 650, Ireland about 50...
Speaker: "I nominate that the new Imperial Capital be Delhi". "Thank you Mr Kumar: anybody seconding it? Yes, thank you Mr Kumar. And you, Mr Kumar. And Ms Kumar, Miss Kumar, Master Kumar, the Kumar Quins, the Amazing Kumars, Mr Kumar and the Kumars, and yes you, Ms...Subramani. Nee Kumar." "I OBJECT!" "The chair yields to the honorable senator for Witney, Senator Palpatine..."
It seems that Denmark has the equivalent of the "Shy Tory" (which may be why the opinion polls were out).
QUOTE Peter Skaarup, a senior Danish People’s Party MP, was asked by Danish media outlet The Local whether the party had ever expected such an election result, and said:
No. It’s gone beyond my wildest expectations. I know we often fare better in these elections than the polls suggest since people often aren’t willing to admit that they vote for the Danish People’s Party, but it really does look fantastic so far.” END-QUOTE
But the polls were spot on. They've shown a tiny centre-right lead with the DF as largest centre-right party for years. Then at the start of the campaign there was about 10 days when the centre-left caught up, but then they fell back again. Politicians like to say things like "this is beyond my wildest dreams" but what's happened was what the polls were saying, as I've been reporting. It's also wrth noting that the swing is very small - IIRC Thorning had a majority of 3, now the centre-right will probably have a majority of 5.
What IS different is that on both wings the voters have gone for the more extreme/new party. The DF overtaking the Liberals is a clear endorsement of a harder line, and on the other wing the Syrizas-like Unity List and the new anti-establishment Alternatives did very well.
I need a stadium for my Imperial Senate, as apportioning seats across the Commonwealth at the same density as Westminster, I get 40,000 Imperial Senators! :
Given the population sizes, about 34,000 of them would be Indian and about 1700 would be British. So it's going in Delhi then.
(Sorry, that;s a bit mean. But whenever somebody starts going on about Imperial Commonwealths, I always wait for them to work out the math. India is HUGE)
I make it 12,450 (31%) for India - remember this is an expanded Commonwealth inc. all English-speaking countries and the EU, and "just for a bit of fun", some extra bits of territory controlled by EU member-states in Europe, and the UK and US worldwide, at roughly the time of the Imperial Conference in 1921 and Statute of Wesminster in 1931.
London will be the Royal Capital of HMQ, there would be no question of that, and England will have be designated homeland of the English language.
Administratively, yes you could have a rotating capital every five years (after each Senate Election) - Washington for the Americas, Cape Town for Africa, London for Europe, Delhi for Asia and Canberra for Australasia.
If India has 12,500 senators, then USA has about 3,000, Germany about 800, UK about 650, Ireland about 50...
Speaker: "I nominate that the new Imperial Capital be Delhi". "Thank you Mr Kumar: anybody seconding it? Yes, thank you Mr Kumar. And you, Mr Kumar. And Ms Kumar, Miss Kumar, Master Kumar, the Kumar Quins, the Amazing Kumars, Mr Kumar and the Kumars, and yes you, Ms...Subramani. Nee Kumar." "I OBJECT!" "The chair yields to the honorable senator for Witney, Senator Palpatine..."
But 69% (28,171) of Imperial Senators would be non-Indian!
It's in Danish but the figures speak volumes. An extraordinary result for the Danske Folkeparti which has been in existence for less than 20 years though much of the original leadership was in Mogens Glistrups' Progress Party which finished second in the 1973 election so the wheel turns full circle and Venstre has been marginalised.
The Social Democrats haven't done that badly but their main allies Radikale Venstre and the Socilistiske Folkeparti have been hammered.
For all the cheering from some on here, look at the Conservatives - just six seats for a party which provided the Prime Minister and was the third largest not so long ago.
So does Kristian Dahl become Statsminister - there's no tradition the Venstre leader has to be Prime Minister of a borgerlig Government so he could.
It seems that Denmark has the equivalent of the "Shy Tory" (which may be why the opinion polls were out).
QUOTE Peter Skaarup, a senior Danish People’s Party MP, was asked by Danish media outlet The Local whether the party had ever expected such an election result, and said:
No. It’s gone beyond my wildest expectations. I know we often fare better in these elections than the polls suggest since people often aren’t willing to admit that they vote for the Danish People’s Party, but it really does look fantastic so far.” END-QUOTE
He objects to the open-closed political paradigm because it's "self-serving liberal propaganda"... and wants to replace it with one where people who don't agree with him are against "trust, low crime, and a degree of neighbourliness"!
But the polls were spot on. They've shown a tiny centre-right lead with the DF as largest centre-right party for years. Then at the start of the campaign there was about 10 days when the centre-left caught up, but then they fell back again. Politicians like to say things like "this is beyond my wildest dreams" but what's happened was what the polls were saying, as I've been reporting. It's also wrth noting that the swing is very small - IIRC Thorning had a majority of 3, now the centre-right will probably have a majority of 5.
What IS different is that on both wings the voters have gone for the more extreme/new party. The DF overtaking the Liberals is a clear endorsement of a harder line, and on the other wing the Syrizas-like Unity List and the new anti-establishment Alternatives did very well.
It seems that Denmark has the equivalent of the "Shy Tory" (which may be why the opinion polls were out).
QUOTE Peter Skaarup, a senior Danish People’s Party MP, was asked by Danish media outlet The Local whether the party had ever expected such an election result, and said:
No. It’s gone beyond my wildest expectations. I know we often fare better in these elections than the polls suggest since people often aren’t willing to admit that they vote for the Danish People’s Party, but it really does look fantastic so far.” END-QUOTE
I need a stadium for my Imperial Senate, as apportioning seats across the Commonwealth at the same density as Westminster, I get 40,000 Imperial Senators! :
Given the population sizes, about 34,000 of them would be Indian and about 1700 would be British. So it's going in Delhi then.
(Sorry, that;s a bit mean. But whenever somebody starts going on about Imperial Commonwealths, I always wait for them to work out the math. India is HUGE)
I make it 12,450 (31%) for India - remember this is an expanded Commonwealth inc. all English-speaking countries and the EU, and "just for a bit of fun", some extra bits of territory controlled by EU member-states in Europe, and the UK and US worldwide, at roughly the time of the Imperial Conference in 1921 and Statute of Wesminster in 1931.
London will be the Royal Capital of HMQ, there would be no question of that, and England will have be designated homeland of the English language.
Administratively, yes you could have a rotating capital every five years (after each Senate Election) - Washington for the Americas, Cape Town for Africa, London for Europe, Delhi for Asia and Canberra for Australasia.
If India has 12,500 senators, then USA has about 3,000, Germany about 800, UK about 650, Ireland about 50...
Speaker: "I nominate that the new Imperial Capital be Delhi". "Thank you Mr Kumar: anybody seconding it? Yes, thank you Mr Kumar. And you, Mr Kumar. And Ms Kumar, Miss Kumar, Master Kumar, the Kumar Quins, the Amazing Kumars, Mr Kumar and the Kumars, and yes you, Ms...Subramani. Nee Kumar." "I OBJECT!" "The chair yields to the honorable senator for Witney, Senator Palpatine..."
But 69% (28,171) of Imperial Senators would be non-Indian!
Cannot see the Pakistani or Bangladeshi senators voting to put the capital in Delhi. Better to compromise, and put it in a modest sized city equidistant from North America, Anglophone Africa and the sub continent. A place with worldwide links and happy with many languages. Leicester springs to mind...
He objects to the open-closed political paradigm because it's "self-serving liberal propaganda"... and wants to replace it with one where people who don't agree with him are against "trust, low crime, and a degree of neighbourliness"!
And the idea that Cameron/Osborne's victory is "a decisive vote against metropolitan liberalism "... won by the most metropolitan liberal Conservative Party ever, which has presided over a continuation of immigration levels from the last decade. But he can't be bothered to see that part, maybe he can't concede anything nice about the Tories!
It seems that Denmark has the equivalent of the "Shy Tory" (which may be why the opinion polls were out).
QUOTE Peter Skaarup, a senior Danish People’s Party MP, was asked by Danish media outlet The Local whether the party had ever expected such an election result, and said:
No. It’s gone beyond my wildest expectations. I know we often fare better in these elections than the polls suggest since people often aren’t willing to admit that they vote for the Danish People’s Party, but it really does look fantastic so far.” END-QUOTE
What IS different is that on both wings the voters have gone for the more extreme/new party.
Isn't that what happened in Northern Ireland too? I guess it's just a trend that happens eventually?
If you mean last month, Sinn Fein were also down and both the UUP and DUP. However you cut the cake I'm sure you can construct an outward trend.
I meant historically - I had thought the SDLP and UUP used to be the dominant factions, but were eclipsed by their more extreme cousins in Sinn Fein and the DUP after a time?
But the polls were spot on. They've shown a tiny centre-right lead with the DF as largest centre-right party for years. Then at the start of the campaign there was about 10 days when the centre-left caught up, but then they fell back again. Politicians like to say things like "this is beyond my wildest dreams" but what's happened was what the polls were saying, as I've been reporting. It's also wrth noting that the swing is very small - IIRC Thorning had a majority of 3, now the centre-right will probably have a majority of 5.
What IS different is that on both wings the voters have gone for the more extreme/new party. The DF overtaking the Liberals is a clear endorsement of a harder line, and on the other wing the Syrizas-like Unity List and the new anti-establishment Alternatives did very well.
Yet when I checked the Guardian website with 90% of the vote counted they gave a 52.4/47.6 lead to the Right Bloc. i.e. 4.8% lead.
I'd call that "out" - at least slightly. :-)
Nick is right to say that the bigger error with the polls was underestimating DPP support by 3% and the rise of the Alternatives. Not sure I'd describe the DPP as necessarily an extreme, unless your idea of right-wing is based on immigration (rather than a big or small state).
It seems that Denmark has the equivalent of the "Shy Tory" (which may be why the opinion polls were out).
QUOTE Peter Skaarup, a senior Danish People’s Party MP, was asked by Danish media outlet The Local whether the party had ever expected such an election result, and said:
No. It’s gone beyond my wildest expectations. I know we often fare better in these elections than the polls suggest since people often aren’t willing to admit that they vote for the Danish People’s Party, but it really does look fantastic so far.” END-QUOTE
What IS different is that on both wings the voters have gone for the more extreme/new party.
Isn't that what happened in Northern Ireland too? I guess it's just a trend that happens eventually?
It's about the resources that are available to a society, and the division thereof. People are willing to self-sacrifice if they feel like there is a crisis and the country/continent/world require concerted effort to recover. The minute that the pressure of a crisis goes away, inter-group resentments expand to fill the available political space. (Note that Europe's nasty parties are concentrated in the prosperous north rather than the crisis-stricken south!)
He objects to the open-closed political paradigm because it's "self-serving liberal propaganda"... and wants to replace it with one where people who don't agree with him are against "trust, low crime, and a degree of neighbourliness"!
And the idea that Cameron/Osborne's victory is "a decisive vote against metropolitan liberalism "... won by the most metropolitan liberal Conservative Party ever, which has presided over a continuation of immigration levels from the last decade. But he can't be bothered to see that part, maybe he can't concede anything nice about the Tories!
It's taken two election victories (only one 'proper' victory according to some, uncharitably) for some on the Left (and still some on the right) to think perhaps Cameron is actually formidible to some degree, or at least has some substance and ability that had previously been discounted. Perhaps that's normal among political tribes, though I'm guessing in 97 the scale of Blair's victory meant no-one in the Tories was denying he had something going for him.
It's in Danish but the figures speak volumes. An extraordinary result for the Danske Folkeparti which has been in existence for less than 20 years though much of the original leadership was in Mogens Glistrups' Progress Party which finished second in the 1973 election so the wheel turns full circle and Venstre has been marginalised.
The Social Democrats haven't done that badly but their main allies Radikale Venstre and the Socilistiske Folkeparti have been hammered.
For all the cheering from some on here, look at the Conservatives - just six seats for a party which provided the Prime Minister and was the third largest not so long ago.
So does Kristian Dahl become Statsminister - there's no tradition the Venstre leader has to be Prime Minister of a borgerlig Government so he could.
Dahl probably won't even enter government.
Why on earth would he not want to be PM? The Liberals have had a terrible result, how could Rasmussen claim a credible mandate?
Only in Denmark could a party finish third and "win" an election.
But the polls were spot on. They've shown a tiny centre-right lead with the DF as largest centre-right party for years. Then at the start of the campaign there was about 10 days when the centre-left caught up, but then they fell back again. Politicians like to say things like "this is beyond my wildest dreams" but what's happened was what the polls were saying, as I've been reporting. It's also wrth noting that the swing is very small - IIRC Thorning had a majority of 3, now the centre-right will probably have a majority of 5.
What IS different is that on both wings the voters have gone for the more extreme/new party. The DF overtaking the Liberals is a clear endorsement of a harder line, and on the other wing the Syrizas-like Unity List and the new anti-establishment Alternatives did very well.
It seems that Denmark has the equivalent of the "Shy Tory" (which may be why the opinion polls were out).
QUOTE Peter Skaarup, a senior Danish People’s Party MP, was asked by Danish media outlet The Local whether the party had ever expected such an election result, and said:
No. It’s gone beyond my wildest expectations. I know we often fare better in these elections than the polls suggest since people often aren’t willing to admit that they vote for the Danish People’s Party, but it really does look fantastic so far.” END-QUOTE
What IS different is that on both wings the voters have gone for the more extreme/new party.
Isn't that what happened in Northern Ireland too? I guess it's just a trend that happens eventually?
If you mean last month, Sinn Fein were also down and both the UUP and DUP. However you cut the cake I'm sure you can construct an outward trend.
I meant historically - I had thought the SDLP and UUP used to be the dominant factions, but were eclipsed by their more extreme cousins in Sinn Fein and the DUP after a time?
SF achieved crossover v. the SDLP at the 2001 election.
He objects to the open-closed political paradigm because it's "self-serving liberal propaganda"... and wants to replace it with one where people who don't agree with him are against "trust, low crime, and a degree of neighbourliness"!
And the idea that Cameron/Osborne's victory is "a decisive vote against metropolitan liberalism "... won by the most metropolitan liberal Conservative Party ever, which has presided over a continuation of immigration levels from the last decade. But he can't be bothered to see that part, maybe he can't concede anything nice about the Tories!
It's taken two election victories (only one 'proper' victory according to some, uncharitably) for some on the Left (and still some on the right) to think perhaps Cameron is actually formidible to some degree, or at least has some substance and ability that had previously been discounted. Perhaps that's normal among political tribes, though I'm guessing in 97 the scale of Blair's victory meant no-one in the Tories was denying he had something going for him.
I am not rushing to rank Cameron as formidable. 2010 was the weakest victory in living memory, so it was natural for people to believe the opposite. 2015 was not a very impressive campaign and furthermore it is not yet clear whether the government was prepared to manage a small single-party overall majority; what was it said about Hannibal's ability to win a victory.
In the historical context, winning a coalition government and a 10-seat majority is good, but not on the Wilson, Macmillan, Churchill scale of electoral achievement never mind Attlee/Thatcher/Blair. Actually, David Cameron will never have won as big a majority as John Major did.
But the polls were spot on. They've shown a tiny centre-right lead with the DF as largest centre-right party for years. Then at the start of the campaign there was about 10 days when the centre-left caught up, but then they fell back again. Politicians like to say things like "this is beyond my wildest dreams" but what's happened was what the polls were saying, as I've been reporting. It's also wrth noting that the swing is very small - IIRC Thorning had a majority of 3, now the centre-right will probably have a majority of 5.
What IS different is that on both wings the voters have gone for the more extreme/new party. The DF overtaking the Liberals is a clear endorsement of a harder line, and on the other wing the Syrizas-like Unity List and the new anti-establishment Alternatives did very well.
Big shift from Liberals to DF (-7.2/+8.8) and from leftish SF to Syriza/anti-austerity parties (-5/+4.9). Not much shift between left and right, but enough to change the government. Also, the Radical Liberals (who are roughly like the redder LibDems) had a bad night (-4.9).
The DF, like most populist parties, is a mix of protest voters (some quite left-wing and anti-austerity on economic issues) and anti-immigrant voters. They've benefited from being out of office up to now, and it's not quite certain they'll join the coalition - being both the largest member and junior partner is awkward (nobody is suggesting they should lead the government at this stage). But they're keen to move into power and I think the other centre-right parties will think it's time they shared responsibility.
I need a stadium for my Imperial Senate, as apportioning seats across the Commonwealth at the same density as Westminster, I get 40,000 Imperial Senators! :
Given the population sizes, about 34,000 of them would be Indian and about 1700 would be British. So it's going in Delhi then.
(Sorry, that;s a bit mean. But whenever somebody starts going on about Imperial Commonwealths, I always wait for them to work out the math. India is HUGE)
I make it 12,450 (31%) for India - remember this is an expanded Commonwealth inc. all English-speaking countries and the EU, and "just for a bit of fun", some extra bits of territory controlled by EU member-states in Europe, and the UK and US worldwide, at roughly the time of the Imperial Conference in 1921 and Statute of Wesminster in 1931.
London will be the Royal Capital of HMQ, there would be no question of that, and England will have be designated homeland of the English language.
Administratively, yes you could have a rotating capital every five years (after each Senate Election) - Washington for the Americas, Cape Town for Africa, London for Europe, Delhi for Asia and Canberra for Australasia.
If India has 12,500 senators, then USA has about 3,000, Germany about 800, UK about 650, Ireland about 50...
Speaker: "I nominate that the new Imperial Capital be Delhi". "Thank you Mr Kumar: anybody seconding it? Yes, thank you Mr Kumar. And you, Mr Kumar. And Ms Kumar, Miss Kumar, Master Kumar, the Kumar Quins, the Amazing Kumars, Mr Kumar and the Kumars, and yes you, Ms...Subramani. Nee Kumar." "I OBJECT!" "The chair yields to the honorable senator for Witney, Senator Palpatine..."
But 69% (28,171) of Imperial Senators would be non-Indian!
Cannot see the Pakistani or Bangladeshi senators voting to put the capital in Delhi. Better to compromise, and put it in a modest sized city equidistant from North America, Anglophone Africa and the sub continent. A place with worldwide links and happy with many languages. Leicester springs to mind...
Tempting
But as I said above, administratively, you could have a rotating capital every five years (after each Senate Election) - Washington for the Americas, Cape Town for Africa, London for Europe, Delhi for Asia and Canberra for Australasia.
It's in Danish but the figures speak volumes. An extraordinary result for the Danske Folkeparti which has been in existence for less than 20 years though much of the original leadership was in Mogens Glistrups' Progress Party which finished second in the 1973 election so the wheel turns full circle and Venstre has been marginalised.
The Social Democrats haven't done that badly but their main allies Radikale Venstre and the Socilistiske Folkeparti have been hammered.
For all the cheering from some on here, look at the Conservatives - just six seats for a party which provided the Prime Minister and was the third largest not so long ago.
So does Kristian Dahl become Statsminister - there's no tradition the Venstre leader has to be Prime Minister of a borgerlig Government so he could.
Dahl probably won't even enter government.
Why on earth would he not want to be PM? The Liberals have had a terrible result, how could Rasmussen claim a credible mandate?
Only in Denmark could a party finish third and "win" an election.
It shouldn't even need to be said, but Denmark is not Britain and ideas of electoral fairness are very different. Continental Europeans have asked me how can David Cameron be a single-party prime minister on 36 point something per cent. So different countries have different standards of how you "win" an election.
The technical details are: O doesn't want to enter government, because it sees itself as having more influence outside, but it supports the blue bloc, which supports Rasmussen. Realistically, the extra influence is probably because many European leaders would be less favourable in dealing with a PM who says Muslims are unwelcome in his country (not David Cameron though - bizarrely). EDIT: O also fears losing blue-collar workers who are a vital part of its base by coalescing too closely with what literally translates as the "bourgeois" centre-right parties.
Still catching up post-China - assume the Standard poll on the Labour lesdership has been discussed? Briefly, in case not: Burnham a fraction ahead of Cooper with both general public and Labour voters (Corbyn last with both); a large plurality would be most likely to vote Labour if the new leader was like Tony Blair rather than any other Labour leader - which is interesting as Tony himself is no longer popular. Interestingly, not a big difference between Labour supporters and the general public.
Syriza government minister sit at a table, talks total bollocks, and at the end of the conversation gets money from a European government body paid for by non-Greek taxpayers.
He objects to the open-closed political paradigm because it's "self-serving liberal propaganda"... and wants to replace it with one where people who don't agree with him are against "trust, low crime, and a degree of neighbourliness"!
And the idea that Cameron/Osborne's victory is "a decisive vote against metropolitan liberalism "... won by the most metropolitan liberal Conservative Party ever, which has presided over a continuation of immigration levels from the last decade. But he can't be bothered to see that part, maybe he can't concede anything nice about the Tories!
It's taken two election victories (only one 'proper' victory according to some, uncharitably) for some on the Left (and still some on the right) to think perhaps Cameron is actually formidible to some degree, or at least has some substance and ability that had previously been discounted. Perhaps that's normal among political tribes, though I'm guessing in 97 the scale of Blair's victory meant no-one in the Tories was denying he had something going for him.
I am not rushing to rank Cameron as formidable. 2010 was the weakest victory in living memory, so it was natural for people to believe the opposite. 2015 was not a very impressive campaign and furthermore it is not yet clear whether the government was prepared to manage a small single-party overall majority; what was it said about Hannibal's ability to win a victory.
In the historical context, winning a coalition government and a 10-seat majority is good, but not on the Wilson, Macmillan, Churchill scale of electoral achievement never mind Attlee/Thatcher/Blair. Actually, David Cameron will never have won as big a majority as John Major did.
If he can keep the union together and not be destroyed by Europe he will have a better case, failure to win a stinking great majority notwithstanding, but the point I think remains - whether or not on balance we think he is formidable, after winning twice now the question if he is is at least asked, whereas before I think he was underestimated by labour, assuming his failure to win outright in 2010 meant he was nothing. He was certainly helped by the quality of opposition and other factors - which in fairness I completely miscalculated - but I do think Cameron is at least a step above average, and labour shouldn't have believed the likes of me that they could do anything and win.
Cannot see the Pakistani or Bangladeshi senators voting to put the capital in Delhi. Better to compromise, and put it in a modest sized city equidistant from North America, Anglophone Africa and the sub continent. A place with worldwide links and happy with many languages. Leicester springs to mind...
Good idea! And also make a local PM the leader of the Senate (or whatever you call the assembly). Now who do we know who represents a Leicester seat. . . . Why! Liz Kendall of course!
Cannot see the Pakistani or Bangladeshi senators voting to put the capital in Delhi. Better to compromise, and put it in a modest sized city equidistant from North America, Anglophone Africa and the sub continent. A place with worldwide links and happy with many languages. Leicester springs to mind...
Good idea! And also make a local PM the leader of the Senate (or whatever you call the assembly). Now who do we know who represents a Leicester seat. . . . Why! Liz Kendall of course!
The plan is coming together!
Only problem is that Kendall may be too scary for Darth Vader...
Nope this is the worst. So far at least. A truly dreadful parliament already.
Hmm - I wouldn't have predicted that you, of all the Labour supporters who post here, would be such a sore loser and so irrational.
I guess it's some kind of displacement activity to avoid having to think about the fact that Labour first crowned Gordon Brown unopposed, then chose Ed Miliband as leader, and is now about to make a third catastrophic choice. Enough to make anyone on the centre-left bitter, I suppose.
Actually, David Cameron will never have won as big a majority as John Major did.
Cameron has won more elections than Major and will have been PM for longer
And regardless of majority size or length of period in office, which will achieve the most? 2-3 years for Cameron to add to his tally I guess (I don't see him lasting the full term even with his comments he will)
Actually, David Cameron will never have won as big a majority as John Major did.
Cameron has won more elections than Major and will have been PM for longer
I agree that getting into government counts as winning even if it's only with 309 seats. So, yes, Cameron will almost certainly have those advantages. Being level with John Major is not really a top-tier performance though. I think the glee of the result is already fading, even on here, being replaced by an acknowledgement of the challenge of a 10-seat majority and of the challenging direction of the government. I remember its being sincerely suggested here that there was no prospect of Conservative rebellions a la 1992-7 because EU referendum - er, this was a week before the Human Rights Act was snatched from under the sword of Damocles.
Still catching up post-China - assume the Standard poll on the Labour lesdership has been discussed? Briefly, in case not: Burnham a fraction ahead of Cooper with both general public and Labour voters (Corbyn last with both); a large plurality would be most likely to vote Labour if the new leader was like Tony Blair rather than any other Labour leader - which is interesting as Tony himself is no longer popular. Interestingly, not a big difference between Labour supporters and the general public.
Overall VI: Con 39, Lab 30, LD 9, UKIP 8, Gr 6.
LDs back in third place! Broken sleazy kippers on the slide.
Presumably Owen Paterson (Con) Bernard Jenkin (Con) Steve Baker (Con) Kate Hoey (Lab) Kelvin Kopkins (Lab) Graham Stringer (Lab) Douglas Carswell (UKIP) Stuart Wheeler (UKIP donor).
And a small bet on Owen Paterson as Next Tory Leader is an exceptionally efficient way of covering yourself for the (admittedly remote) chance of a Out vote. You can get 66/1 (or more at Betfair).
Still catching up post-China - assume the Standard poll on the Labour lesdership has been discussed? Briefly, in case not: Burnham a fraction ahead of Cooper with both general public and Labour voters (Corbyn last with both); a large plurality would be most likely to vote Labour if the new leader was like Tony Blair rather than any other Labour leader - which is interesting as Tony himself is no longer popular. Interestingly, not a big difference between Labour supporters and the general public.
Overall VI: Con 39, Lab 30, LD 9, UKIP 8, Gr 6.
LDs back in third place! Broken sleazy kippers on the slide.
A curious fact about Winston Churchill - "Greatest Briton" that he was - is that he only won one out of the three elections that he fought as leader of the Conservative party, and even that victory was small. (A overall majority of 17 seats in 1951)
Actually, David Cameron will never have won as big a majority as John Major did.
Cameron has won more elections than Major and will have been PM for longer
And regardless of majority size or length of period in office, which will achieve the most? 2-3 years for Cameron to add to his tally I guess (I don't see him lasting the full term even with his comments he will)
As prevously pointed out, he will execute his manifesto to the best of his ability, fight three referenda and win at least two of them, has kept Scotland in the UK (at least for now), will either keep UK in EU or take it out, and will try to loosen or remove UK from the ECHR. I thoroughly disapprove of the latter but I don't console myself by belittling his stature.
Cannot see the Pakistani or Bangladeshi senators voting to put the capital in Delhi. Better to compromise, and put it in a modest sized city equidistant from North America, Anglophone Africa and the sub continent. A place with worldwide links and happy with many languages. Leicester springs to mind...
Good idea! And also make a local PM the leader of the Senate (or whatever you call the assembly). Now who do we know who represents a Leicester seat. . . . Why! Liz Kendall of course!
The plan is coming together!
Only problem is that Kendall may be too scary for Darth Vader...
Actually, David Cameron will never have won as big a majority as John Major did.
Cameron has won more elections than Major and will have been PM for longer
And regardless of majority size or length of period in office, which will achieve the most? 2-3 years for Cameron to add to his tally I guess (I don't see him lasting the full term even with his comments he will)
As prevously pointed out, he will execute his manifesto to the best of his ability, fight three referenda and win at least two of them, has kept Scotland in the UK (at least for now), will either keep UK in EU or take it out, and will try to loosen or remove UK from the ECHR. I thoroughly disapprove of the latter but I don't console myself by belittling his stature.
The referendums are classic Cameron though. He is going to fight very hard for three referendums, and in each, if he is successful, it will result in... no change to anything that took place the day before the referendum! So he has made the rod for his own back (more so with Europe than Scotland) and the victory signifies nothing much, no change.
It's in Danish but the figures speak volumes. An extraordinary result for the Danske Folkeparti which has been in existence for less than 20 years though much of the original leadership was in Mogens Glistrups' Progress Party which finished second in the 1973 election so the wheel turns full circle and Venstre has been marginalised.
The Social Democrats haven't done that badly but their main allies Radikale Venstre and the Socilistiske Folkeparti have been hammered.
For all the cheering from some on here, look at the Conservatives - just six seats for a party which provided the Prime Minister and was the third largest not so long ago.
So does Kristian Dahl become Statsminister - there's no tradition the Venstre leader has to be Prime Minister of a borgerlig Government so he could.
Dahl probably won't even enter government.
Why on earth would he not want to be PM? The Liberals have had a terrible result, how could Rasmussen claim a credible mandate?
Only in Denmark could a party finish third and "win" an election.
It shouldn't even need to be said, but Denmark is not Britain and ideas of electoral fairness are very different. Continental Europeans have asked me how can David Cameron be a single-party prime minister on 36 point something per cent. So different countries have different standards of how you "win" an election.
The technical details are: O doesn't want to enter government, because it sees itself as having more influence outside, but it supports the blue bloc, which supports Rasmussen. Realistically, the extra influence is probably because many European leaders would be less favourable in dealing with a PM who says Muslims are unwelcome in his country (not David Cameron though - bizarrely). EDIT: O also fears losing blue-collar workers who are a vital part of its base by coalescing too closely with what literally translates as the "bourgeois" centre-right parties.
Surely the election result makes Dahl "leader" of the blue bloc? How can you have more influence in opposition than as PM?
Actually, David Cameron will never have won as big a majority as John Major did.
Cameron has won more elections than Major and will have been PM for longer
I agree that getting into government counts as winning even if it's only with 309 seats. So, yes, Cameron will almost certainly have those advantages. Being level with John Major is not really a top-tier performance though. I think the glee of the result is already fading, even on here, being replaced by an acknowledgement of the challenge of a 10-seat majority and of the challenging direction of the government. I remember its being sincerely suggested here that there was no prospect of Conservative rebellions a la 1992-7 because EU referendum - er, this was a week before the Human Rights Act was snatched from under the sword of Damocles.
In terms of election victories and/or length of Premiership he will have beaten Attlee, Eden, Callaghan, Major and Brown, and will be only behind Wilson, Thatcher and Blair. If he makes it to 2020, he will have been PM for the whole of the New Tens, and a child starting primary school when his Premiership began will be in secondary school when he leaves.
Actually, David Cameron will never have won as big a majority as John Major did.
Cameron has won more elections than Major and will have been PM for longer
I agree that getting into government counts as winning even if it's only with 309 seats. So, yes, Cameron will almost certainly have those advantages. Being level with John Major is not really a top-tier performance though. I think the glee of the result is already fading, even on here, being replaced by an acknowledgement of the challenge of a 10-seat majority and of the challenging direction of the government. I remember its being sincerely suggested here that there was no prospect of Conservative rebellions a la 1992-7 because EU referendum - er, this was a week before the Human Rights Act was snatched from under the sword of Damocles.
In terms of election victories and/or length of Premiership he will have beaten Attlee, Eden, Callaghan, Major and Brown, and will be only behind Wilson, Thatcher and Blair. If he makes it to 2020, he will have been PM for the whole of the New Tens, and a child starting primary school when his Premiership began will be in secondary school when he leaves.
That's not the CV of an underperforming PM.
Length of time is doing a lot of work in this argument here. And, you know, Major had seven years and Attlee only six, but nobody ranks Major above Attlee. What matters is: whether your victory is resilient through the parliament; whether the scale of your victory changes anything; what you do with it. Major slipped up on point 1 and Cameron looks a little more stable on 1 but much more risky on 3 compared to the clear mandate in 1992 for continued privatisation and conservatism.
Comments
I need a stadium for my Imperial Senate, as apportioning seats across the Commonwealth at the same density as Westminster, I get 40,000 Imperial Senators!
I'm still of the view that, for a lot of voters (but by no means a majority), they're a more socially-acceptable BNP without the violence/weirdness - a way to express distaste towards foreigners and indeed non-white Brits (especially Muslims) at the ballot box. I don't think that sentiment is going anywhere, even if the party tears itself apart.
Puts our Bishops in the Lords to shame
(There are some nice ones on the comments in thie Crooked Timber piece, if you haven't seen it already.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_People's_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivonka_Survilla
I'm following the Danish election here:
http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/valg2015/live/live.htm
It's in Danish but the figures speak volumes. An extraordinary result for the Danske Folkeparti which has been in existence for less than 20 years though much of the original leadership was in Mogens Glistrups' Progress Party which finished second in the 1973 election so the wheel turns full circle and Venstre has been marginalised.
The Social Democrats haven't done that badly but their main allies Radikale Venstre and the Socilistiske Folkeparti have been hammered.
For all the cheering from some on here, look at the Conservatives - just six seats for a party which provided the Prime Minister and was the third largest not so long ago.
So does Kristian Dahl become Statsminister - there's no tradition the Venstre leader has to be Prime Minister of a borgerlig Government so he could.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/29/labour-party-equality
Labour’s interim leader Harriet Harman says former cabinet minister will carry pro-Europe message
http://bit.ly/1K1axSQ
(Sorry, that;s a bit mean. But whenever somebody starts going on about Imperial Commonwealths, I always wait for them to work out the math. India is HUGE)
To the Russia fans out there, the above is only a momentary piece of idle speculation, I don't actually require a lecture about how I'm been brainwashed by western media to condemn the pure saints of Russia by making such a no doubt spurious and offensive comparison with the glorious return of Crimea and how irredentism is all the rage thesedays, in response. Many thanks.
London will be the Royal Capital of HMQ, there would be no question of that, and England will have be designated homeland of the English language.
Administratively, yes you could have a rotating capital every five years (after each Senate Election) - Washington for the Americas, Cape Town for Africa, London for Europe, Delhi for Asia and Canberra for Australasia.
Jonathan is referring to how crap Labour's performance really was
QUOTE
Peter Skaarup, a senior Danish People’s Party MP, was asked by Danish media outlet The Local whether the party had ever expected such an election result, and said:
No. It’s gone beyond my wildest expectations. I know we often fare better in these elections than the polls suggest since people often aren’t willing to admit that they vote for the Danish People’s Party, but it really does look fantastic so far.”
END-QUOTE
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jun/18/denmark-general-election-2015-results-live
Neither UKIP man great allies of Farage...
Careful, or I'll add you to The List.
Who were our Most Alliterative Prime Ministers? The Yanks are obviously not so picky and harbo(u)r little nominal discrimination: 9% of their presidents have been alliterative, which I suspect to be high compared to the background population.
(There was some criticism of the suggestion we should have works' councils a couple of weeks ago on here. I think it is obvious enough that we shouldn't had trade unions and works councils, but the choice as between them is more finely balanced.)
Speaker: "I nominate that the new Imperial Capital be Delhi". "Thank you Mr Kumar: anybody seconding it? Yes, thank you Mr Kumar. And you, Mr Kumar. And Ms Kumar, Miss Kumar, Master Kumar, the Kumar Quins, the Amazing Kumars, Mr Kumar and the Kumars, and yes you, Ms...Subramani. Nee Kumar."
"I OBJECT!"
"The chair yields to the honorable senator for Witney, Senator Palpatine..."
What IS different is that on both wings the voters have gone for the more extreme/new party. The DF overtaking the Liberals is a clear endorsement of a harder line, and on the other wing the Syrizas-like Unity List and the new anti-establishment Alternatives did very well.
He objects to the open-closed political paradigm because it's "self-serving liberal propaganda"... and wants to replace it with one where people who don't agree with him are against "trust, low crime, and a degree of neighbourliness"!
Danish polls with 1 day to go - centre-right ahead by 1.5, 1.5 and 1.6.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/705811/#Comment_705811
Yet when I checked the Guardian website with 90% of the vote counted they gave a 52.4/47.6 lead to the Right Bloc. i.e. 4.8% lead.
I'd call that "out" - at least slightly. :-)
Gentofte
Herning Nord
Herning Syd
Ikast
Ringkøbing
Rudersdal
Silkeborg Nord
Struer
Varde
Viborg Øst
Only in Denmark could a party finish third and "win" an election.
Hollande v Sarkozy?
In the historical context, winning a coalition government and a 10-seat majority is good, but not on the Wilson, Macmillan, Churchill scale of electoral achievement never mind Attlee/Thatcher/Blair. Actually, David Cameron will never have won as big a majority as John Major did.
The full vote shares are here, with 98% counted:
http://www.politiko.dk/valgresultat#/resultater/landet
Big shift from Liberals to DF (-7.2/+8.8) and from leftish SF to Syriza/anti-austerity parties (-5/+4.9). Not much shift between left and right, but enough to change the government. Also, the Radical Liberals (who are roughly like the redder LibDems) had a bad night (-4.9).
The DF, like most populist parties, is a mix of protest voters (some quite left-wing and anti-austerity on economic issues) and anti-immigrant voters. They've benefited from being out of office up to now, and it's not quite certain they'll join the coalition - being both the largest member and junior partner is awkward (nobody is suggesting they should lead the government at this stage). But they're keen to move into power and I think the other centre-right parties will think it's time they shared responsibility.
But as I said above, administratively, you could have a rotating capital every five years (after each Senate Election) - Washington for the Americas, Cape Town for Africa, London for Europe, Delhi for Asia and Canberra for Australasia.
The technical details are: O doesn't want to enter government, because it sees itself as having more influence outside, but it supports the blue bloc, which supports Rasmussen. Realistically, the extra influence is probably because many European leaders would be less favourable in dealing with a PM who says Muslims are unwelcome in his country (not David Cameron though - bizarrely). EDIT: O also fears losing blue-collar workers who are a vital part of its base by coalescing too closely with what literally translates as the "bourgeois" centre-right parties.
Overall VI: Con 39, Lab 30, LD 9, UKIP 8, Gr 6.
Good night all.
Now who do we know who represents a Leicester seat. . . . Why! Liz Kendall of course!
Only problem is that Kendall may be too scary for Darth Vader...
I guess it's some kind of displacement activity to avoid having to think about the fact that Labour first crowned Gordon Brown unopposed, then chose Ed Miliband as leader, and is now about to make a third catastrophic choice. Enough to make anyone on the centre-left bitter, I suppose.
CON - 63.4% (-11.5)
UKIP - 25.2% (+25.2)
LAB - 11.4% (-13.7)
It's the thought that counts.
That's not the CV of an underperforming PM.
Social Democrats: 925,639 (26.31%)
Danish People's Party: 741,460 (21.08%)
Venstre: 684,518 (19.46%)
Total votes: 3,517,713
A slight drop in turnout from 2011 when total votes were 3,545,368.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m1xxBlHGRXW7l7T4uRFO9PZdK_eVCN99Vl4muQ_7h3k/edit#gid=0