Sure, if you wanted to join an organisation that campaigned on behalf of x, a genuine charity basically, that would be fine.
But political parties: no thanks.
No logos, no slogans. Make people work to understand what their local candidates stand for. Have a fluid system where the executive genuinely has to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, and where MPs can become government ministers even if they don't agree with the views of the PM 100% on all issues.
Make is so that there are different coalitions for each bit of legislation, rather than a system of whipping and blackmail.
Either that: or enshrine political parties through some form of PR.
I don't see how you have any form of coherent government without parties. The idea of fixing a budget, for example, with no idea if your health or defence policies will be supported by a majority in the Commons is absurd. You need to have a majority in the Commons signed up for a common platform and the difference between that and a party rather escapes me.
Personally, I get irritated by the tory party's tolerance of the awkward squad who generally have very safe seats. I would be looking to deselect them. They could of course stand as independents and see how much their personal vote is worth.
You say "coherent government" I say "tyranny of the minority"
1. Plenty of councils get by either being run by independents or by rainbow coalitions. 2. Somebody will be able to command the support of the House of Commons, and will propose a budget.
The councils run by "independents" have generally stood as a group or a party for want of a better description. 2. What drives you to that conclusion in the absence of party structures? Maybe they would have that majority on the even days of the week. Maybe they would have that majority until they actually decided to do something. It is a recipe for chaos.
Jersey (and I believe Guernsey) have no political parties and survive quite nicely.
No we don't - but in communities of 60,000 & 90,000 there wouldn't be much point - and like all small relatively prosperous communities the islands are small 'c' conservative - even if the Conservative Chancellor has done more to harm 'tax avoidance' businesses than his Labour predecessors.
As to 'survive quite nicely' I doubt the electorate's view of their politicians is very different from those in the UK - the only difference being we're more likely to know some of them personally.....
PClipp Voters had a chance to dump FPTP in 2011 in the AV referendum, which would have required each MP to get more than 50% of the vote, they did not, so tough
Sure, if you wanted to join an organisation that campaigned on behalf of x, a genuine charity basically, that would be fine.
But political parties: no thanks.
No logos, no slogans. Make people work to understand what their local candidates stand for. Have a fluid system where the executive genuinely has to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, and where MPs can become government ministers even if they don't agree with the views of the PM 100% on all issues.
Make is so that there are different coalitions for each bit of legislation, rather than a system of whipping and blackmail.
Either that: or enshrine political parties through some form of PR.
Agree with everything except you last line :-)
I prefer (1). But I feel we're currently getting the worst of both worlds.
Hard to see political parties voting for their own demise, mind...
If you want to transfer maximum power from the parties to the voters then SNTV (Single Non-Transferable Vote) in multi-member seats is the way to go.
JL Patronage is still used in the US to appoint to key committee positions and positions within the Congressional leadership, without a presidential system it is difficult to separate the legislature and executive in practice
If we moved to separate the legislature and executive, as in the US, then parties would have far less power over MPs as they would lose to patronage of giving them jobs.
True. I am undecided about this although I know a number of regulars on here support the idea. It is not something I have really given enough thought to or studied enough to work out whether I would like the consequences or not.
I instinctively dislike the idea of a president as I approve of the principles of collective representative decision making. We spent a long time trying to make sure Parliament had power over the previous (admittedly non elected) executive and I am not sure I would agree with rushing back into that.
I would agree with most of that. I very much agree with recall. I could not, however, go for any form of voting reform that included party vote share as a factor because I believe it would give more power to the parties.
One solution I believe would work would be to allow MPs to declare party affiliation during elections but then to have free votes in Parliament on all but perhaps the main budgetary issues (using the same criteria as in the 1911 Parliament Act). Parties would have to persuade their MPs that a measure was worthy of being passed (or opposed) but would not be able to coerce them to vote in a particular way.
I don't see how that would work in practice. In fact, in reality all votes bar confidence ones are to some extent 'free votes' in that an MP voting against a 3-line whip tends to have few if any sanctions taken against them. But if you're elected as a member of a party then you do tend to feel a moral obligation to them (and the party would no doubt make the point should an MP not feel it). I'm also unclear on what the mechanism is in your model for holding a government to account.
Using party vote share in elections doesn't necessarily give parties more power; that depends on the system used. At the moment, under FPTP, unless some form of primaries is introduced, parties have huge control over candidate and hence MP selection. This would be almost as true under any form of single-constituency electoral system. STV gets away from that but also requires voters to have a detailed knowledge of perhaps 20-30 candidates in their constituency, which is, I suspect, asking too much of them.
By contrast, what I call Open List Plus (I don't know if the system has a proper name) allows voters to vote for either a party or a candidate but in either case, the order in which MPs elected is determined by their individual totals: something a party would have little to no control over. The system can still be gamed by parties, by standing fewer candidates than there are vacancies but the risks of doing that are twofold: (1) you can miss out on getting candidates elected if you do better than expected, and (2) you can miss out on votes from people who would have supported a particular type of candidate from your party but doesn't have that option.
@malocolmG -Philip, what part of 56 seats out of 59 do you not understand. My side did win but as we are not in a democracy another country will decide what happens in mine not the party that won, so even worse than position in England.
Your fellow countrymen would appear not to agree with your views. There was an independence referendum held, the Nationalists could not provide a sufficiently persuasive case and lost. Your own countrymen at a secret ballot decided to remain within the union. With that democratic act completed and the fact you are represented in the union I cannot see how you are ruled by another country?
However even even when you lose in a democratic vote you are still not happy. Are you Bad losers, sore losers whatever. It's done, it's done for a generation and no matter how much of want it ( and believe you me so do we down here) your own countryman turned away and left you standing on the field of battle on your own. Time to get over it and move on or is it the fact that a right wing government gave you that democratic choice to exercise and then you well... Failed to excessive that right? Before I am referred to as a Tory again as regulars know I am ABL. In that I have the SNP to sincerely thank because the SNP utterly stuffed Labour for a generation.
That's all I am going to say on Scotland because I am just utterly sick of the entire bloody subject
Sure, if you wanted to join an organisation that campaigned on behalf of x, a genuine charity basically, that would be fine.
But political parties: no thanks.
No logos, no slogans. Make people work to understand what their local candidates stand for. Have a fluid system where the executive genuinely has to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, and where MPs can become government ministers even if they don't agree with the views of the PM 100% on all issues.
Make is so that there are different coalitions for each bit of legislation, rather than a system of whipping and blackmail.
There are several things that ought to be done to reduce the power of political parties. Firstly, section 24 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, which allows capricious testators to escape a charge to inheritance tax by devising and bequeathing their property to the big political parties, should be repealed immediately. Secondly, all state funding of political parties, whether by way of Short money or otherwise, should cease. Thirdly, the practice of party whips putting improper pressure on MPs to vote one way, or offering them inducements, whether in the form of offices or other patronage, to vote another way, should be treated for the corruption it is. The whip's seat ought to be vacated as if he was dead, and he should be indicted and punished for bribery and/or wilful misconduct in public office.
You also raise the question of charities. I have no problem with unincorporated associations campaigning for whatever they like. I do have a massive problem with charities campaigning for a change in the law or government policy. Firstly, it is not charitable and illegal. Secondly, there is no reason why some political campaigners masquerading as charities should be entitled to the generous exemptions from direct and indirect taxation which charities enjoy, when other political campaigners are liable to a charge to tax.
As a caveat to my point, and an extension to the arguments set against me, why restrict foreign aid to £12bn? Let's educate every poor child in the world, give them all fresh water, Ebola vaccinations etc etc.
And then retire to the nearest champagne bar to congratulate ourselves on our generosity and benevolence. In public of course.
I'm beginning to think this site is an extension of the Westminster bubble that politicians inhabit.
Let's try a parallel that you might understand.
Is it a good idea to vaccinate against, let's say, tuberculosis, polio or smallpox? Or should we just wait for there to be an outbreak and then treat the symptoms?
In my view, prevention is better than cure: the foreign aid budget should be seen as part of our overall foreign affairs and defence strategy rather than being viewed in isolation.
Of course there are reasonable argument over "how much" and "how should it be spent", but just to dismiss the concept is a foolish approach.
(And, as an aside, a huge amount of the Gates money gets spent in the UK. I sit on the finance & planning committee for a university and Gates is one of their major strategic partners. That funds important, value added, jobs in the UK academic sector)
PClipp Voters had a chance to dump FPTP in 2011 in the AV referendum, which would have required each MP to get more than 50% of the vote, they did not, so tough
One of the most powerful arguments put up by the Conservatives in the AV campaign was that AV was not STV, which of course it is not. It is "a miserable little compromise", but it was in the Labour Party manifesto at the previous election, so it ought to have gone through.
The Tory argument was that everybody ought to vote against AV, with the implication that they would introduce STV in due course. Some people were fooled by that line. And the Labour Party´s machinations were atrocious.
rcs1000 Political parties are essentially coalitions of people with broadly similar views, it would not only be difficult to pass legislation and take decisions without their organisation, most voters find the platforms of the political parties the best way to decide who to vote for through the TV, media etc and they can also more easily identify which of their national leaders they want as PM, they do not have the time nor the inclination to follow every statement of numerous independent candidates nor every piece of legislation passed through Parliament
Seems to be taking a long time, been 50 years now pouring money in and yet most of Africa is still a basket case. How many trillions does it take to improve things.
During the Cold War it was bribery rather than real aid.
It's only been in the last 5 years (at least in the UK) that DfID has been reformed to try and at least measure the outcomes of what they do/ That's the one good thing that Mitchell did in his career.
Sure, if you wanted to join an organisation that campaigned on behalf of x, a genuine charity basically, that would be fine.
But political parties: no thanks.
No logos, no slogans. Make people work to understand what their local candidates stand for. Have a fluid system where the executive genuinely has to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, and where MPs can become government ministers even if they don't agree with the views of the PM 100% on all issues.
Make is so that there are different coalitions for each bit of legislation, rather than a system of whipping and blackmail.
Either that: or enshrine political parties through some form of PR.
I don't see how you have any form of coherent government without parties. The idea of fixing a budget, for example, with no idea if your health or defence policies will be supported by a majority in the Commons is absurd. You need to have a majority in the Commons signed up for a common platform and the difference between that and a party rather escapes me.
Personally, I get irritated by the tory party's tolerance of the awkward squad who generally have very safe seats. I would be looking to deselect them. They could of course stand as independents and see how much their personal vote is worth.
That is frankly atrocious. And a perfect example of what is wrong with the party system. MPs are elected to represent their constituents NOT their party.
There is a difference between acting in the interest of their constituents once elected and "representing" their constituents.
And neither are being done under the current system where the MPs first and foremost act in the interests of their party and not their constituents or the country.
Surely MPs are elected as legislators, their duty to their constituents it to ensure that legislation that is passed considers local interests.
Yes and his point that they are led like sheep to vote whichever way their party chooses, regardless if good or bad for their constituents is the point. The system is completely broken and what we have is a party dictatorship.
Sure, if you wanted to join an organisation that campaigned on behalf of x, a genuine charity basically, that would be fine.
But political parties: no thanks.
No logos, no slogans. Make people work to understand what their local candidates stand for. Have a fluid system where the executive genuinely has to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, and where MPs can become government ministers even if they don't agree with the views of the PM 100% on all issues.
Make is so that there are different coalitions for each bit of legislation, rather than a system of whipping and blackmail.
Either that: or enshrine political parties through some form of PR.
You say "coherent government" I say "tyranny of the minority"
1. Plenty of councils get by either being run by independents or by rainbow coalitions. 2. Somebody will be able to command the support of the House of Commons, and will propose a budget.
The councils run by "independents" have generally stood as a group or a party for want of a better description. 2. What drives you to that conclusion in the absence of party structures? Maybe they would have that majority on the even days of the week. Maybe they would have that majority until they actually decided to do something. It is a recipe for chaos.
Jersey (and I believe Guernsey) have no political parties and survive quite nicely.
No we don't - but in communities of 60,000 & 90,000 there wouldn't be much point - and like all small relatively prosperous communities the islands are small 'c' conservative - even if the Conservative Chancellor has done more to harm 'tax avoidance' businesses than his Labour predecessors.
As to 'survive quite nicely' I doubt the electorate's view of their politicians is very different from those in the UK - the only difference being we're more likely to know some of them personally.....
Tax havens do not need the same systems, given they are chock full of like minded people, there to line their pockets without having to pay their dues.
The SNP lost the IndyRef..The Labour Party lost the GE.. but the bleating that is still going on is laughable..Time to grow up boys..
Thought you had emigrated or is that just fantasy. People who have to live in the dictatorship paying their taxes and reaping the results get to moan , foreigners don't. Bleat off.
No we don't - but in communities of 60,000 & 90,000 there wouldn't be much point - and like all small relatively prosperous communities the islands are small 'c' conservative - even if the Conservative Chancellor has done more to harm 'tax avoidance' businesses than his Labour predecessors.
As to 'survive quite nicely' I doubt the electorate's view of their politicians is very different from those in the UK - the only difference being we're more likely to know some of them personally.....
I remember my time living in the Channel Islands with great fondness.
I'm not sure that size is relevant though - the Gibraltar electorate is less than 20k and party politics here is very stark, overt, confrontational and tribal.
It's true about being closer to MPs in smaller communities. I am related to MPs on both sides of the aisle and I count about a third of them as personal friends outside of politics. That greatly helps the sense of engagement. You can actually influence government policy over coffee.
In the Jsy/Gsy/Gib scenarios size doesn't matter and tradition/history do. It's more how the parliamentary system has evolved rather than fitting a size to a model. And its what the people have settled on.
Which is why the usually sensible DavidL is deliberately misrepresenting my point for shallow debating purposes when he dismisses my random example of Jersey as, in his words, being the "best" example anyone apparently can come up with. It's not - its just an example. Nothing more.
@malocolmG -Philip, what part of 56 seats out of 59 do you not understand. My side did win but as we are not in a democracy another country will decide what happens in mine not the party that won, so even worse than position in England.
Your fellow countrymen would appear not to agree with your views. There was an independence referendum held, the Nationalists could not provide a sufficiently persuasive case and lost. Your own countrymen at a secret ballot decided to remain within the union. With that democratic act completed and the fact you are represented in the union I cannot see how you are ruled by another country?
However even even when you lose in a democratic vote you are still not happy. Are you Bad losers, sore losers whatever. It's done, it's done for a generation and no matter how much of want it ( and believe you me so do we down here) your own countryman turned away and left you standing on the field of battle on your own. Time to get over it and move on or is it the fact that a right wing government gave you that democratic choice to exercise and then you well... Failed to excessive that right? Before I am referred to as a Tory again as regulars know I am ABL. In that I have the SNP to sincerely thank because the SNP utterly stuffed Labour for a generation.
That's all I am going to say on Scotland because I am just utterly sick of the entire bloody subject
Just as we are sick to the back teeth of Tories, Westminster Tories. Constantly gloating and denigrating the SNP and Scotland. Practice what you preach.
Seems to be taking a long time, been 50 years now pouring money in and yet most of Africa is still a basket case. How many trillions does it take to improve things.
During the Cold War it was bribery rather than real aid.
It's only been in the last 5 years (at least in the UK) that DfID has been reformed to try and at least measure the outcomes of what they do/ That's the one good thing that Mitchell did in his career.
Charles, I agree but still an awful lot of waste unfortunately.
Mr fox I agree that complacency could be a problem for the Tories but I don't see any of the labour candidates with the ability or message to exploit it. You have outlined the potential Tory pitfalls, with which I agree, but not produced a labour alternative. Banging on about the NHS will not win the next election.
But it´s not just the Labour Party, is it? The Liberal Democrats are in the middle of electing a new leader, and I have no doubt their fortunes will revive. The Green Party is not to be sneezed at, UKIP might get the wind back in its sails, the SNP are still rampant....
The Labour Party could come to its senses, stop trying to polarise everything between the Tories and themselves, and start constructing a much broader coalition, in which Labour would be just one player among many.
Because, of course, we still have the disfunctional FPTP voting system. Under this system, electors have to guess who the two front runners are in their own constituency, and vote tactically according to this guess. What would happen, I wonder, if an anti-Tory alliance of parties got together and decided to put up just one candidate against the sitting Tory? That is, after all, the logic of FPTP, which Conservatives defend to the bitter end. The Tories would be massacred.
An improbable scenario, perhaps. But not an impossible one. Labour this time round could end up with a candidate who puts country before party. If, as posters on here have said, Labour are currently a bit lacking in policy, then policy issues are not going to be an insurmountable barrier. Just the usual pride and vanity.
After all, the Liberal Democrats worked with the Conservatives for five years, and the Tories were happy enough to claim all the Lib Dem policies as their own in the recent election. And they still are.
A LD revival under Farron in tacit alliance with a centrist Labour leader such as Kendall or Burnham is a definite possibility. That was part of the New Labour recipie with Paddy Ashdown riding the same sentiment in the country. Some sort of agreement with the SNP would be needed too.
There is plenty to do in rebuilding both parties in the next year while Tories navel gaze and split over Europe. If the LD and Labour parties can together take 40 seats off the Tories then there would be an end to a Conservative government. The alternative would be an interesting coalition rather than a majority government, but very possible.
The Tories only need to lose 20 seats to be out of office.
PClipp Voters had a chance to dump FPTP in 2011 in the AV referendum, which would have required each MP to get more than 50% of the vote, they did not, so tough
One of the most powerful arguments put up by the Conservatives in the AV campaign was that AV was not STV, which of course it is not. It is "a miserable little compromise", but it was in the Labour Party manifesto at the previous election, so it ought to have gone through.
The Tory argument was that everybody ought to vote against AV, with the implication that they would introduce STV in due course. Some people were fooled by that line. And the Labour Party's machinations were atrocious.
The notion that the Tories ever endorsed STV as superior to FPTP is one that's passed me by. Arguing that A is worse than both B and C is not to imply that B should be replaced by C.
On the other hand, there were undoubtedly some Lib Dems and the like who voted against AV specifically because it's not STV.
(As an aside, AV isn't the worst of all worlds; SV is).
11/4 on a change of Labour leader before the next election is a sucker's bet. I'd want 40/1 before I considered it. Labour have no history of changing leaders, no matter how hopeless. Mutterings from a few dinosaurs that it would be a good idea to change this approach are not worth betting on. And that assumes the leader actually isn't any good. She might be.
Short of death, the winner of the leadership contest will almost certainly fight the 2020 election as leader.
Your use of the word she shows why it's even more likely to be a loser. If Labour elects their first female leader then that will not be the first leader removed before the election.
I think it's understandable so many people were angry and protesting yesterday. Bloody Conservatives! What makes them think they have a mandate to enact their manifesto, apart from winning a General Election six weeks ago?!
Ho! Ho! Highly satirical. The Tories received the support of under 25% of registered voters at the last election. They got a distortedly large number of MPs because of the dysfunctional nature of the voting system. They can pass laws in Parliament, Mr Dancer, of course they can - but that does not mean that the country is behind them.
2005 - Labour 35.2% of the vote, winning 160+ majority, everything is fine, champagne all around.
2015 - Conservatives 36.1% of the vote, winning a majority of 12, outraged bleating and wringing of hands
Double standards much ?
You are confusing 2005 with 2001. Also your figures are for UK not GB.
If we moved to separate the legislature and executive, as in the US, then parties would have far less power over MPs as they would lose to patronage of giving them jobs.
True. I am undecided about this although I know a number of regulars on here support the idea. It is not something I have really given enough thought to or studied enough to work out whether I would like the consequences or not.
I instinctively dislike the idea of a president as I approve of the principles of collective representative decision making. We spent a long time trying to make sure Parliament had power over the previous (admittedly non elected) executive and I am not sure I would agree with rushing back into that.
I guess need to look at the idea in more detail.
I'd be very interested to hear your views if you do give some thought to this. I've always been in favour as it allows people with real expertise to be brought in to work under Parliamentary oversight. Amongst many other good reasons; opponents of the HoL should welcome that as the end of one of the justifications for its continued existence. We already appoint some ministers using the HoL route and this would only be another step, not a sea change.
@JohnLilburne makes a very strong point about the dilution of patronage. The payroll vote would be diminished.
It also addresses the points made downstream in this thread concerning MPs having (real or perceived) responsibilities ranging from being in the Cabinet to dog mess on their high street.
The SNP lost the IndyRef..The Labour Party lost the GE.. but the bleating that is still going on is laughable..Time to grow up boys..
The Tories "won" a EU referendum, which has the potential to rip the party apart, whatever the result. I think we should delay passing judgement on which party is the most grown up until we come through the other side of the referendum !!
Justin124/Fox If Burnham or Cooper win back most of the voters who backed Blair in 2005 then switched to Cameron in 2010 and 2015, win back half the seats lost to the SNP and the Tories lose a few voters to UKIP post EU ref it is not impossible Labour could win a small majority, however all those events would probably be necessary to occur at once and it is a long way off at the moment
I think it's understandable so many people were angry and protesting yesterday. Bloody Conservatives! What makes them think they have a mandate to enact their manifesto, apart from winning a General Election six weeks ago?!
Ho! Ho! Highly satirical. The Tories received the support of under 25% of registered voters at the last election. They got a distortedly large number of MPs because of the dysfunctional nature of the voting system. They can pass laws in Parliament, Mr Dancer, of course they can - but that does not mean that the country is behind them.
2005 - Labour 35.2% of the vote, winning 160+ majority, everything is fine, champagne all around.
2015 - Conservatives 36.1% of the vote, winning a majority of 12, outraged bleating and wringing of hands
Double standards much ?
You are confusing 2005 with 2001. Also your figures are for UK not GB.
Cant recall much bleating at those elections either....
Many moons ago on here I said that, sadly, the BBC licence fee was no longer fit for purpose and would have a limited lifespan. In return I got accused of being anti-BBC, not understanding technology, etc, etc.
BBC director general Tony Hall has said he believes the licence fee has "got 10 years of life left in it". His comments come after a group of MPs said earlier this year the TV licence did not have a long-term future and was "becoming harder to justify".
Mr fox I agree that complacency could be a problem for the Tories but I don't see any of the labour candidates with the ability or message to exploit it. You have outlined the potential Tory pitfalls, with which I agree, but not produced a labour alternative. Banging on about the NHS will not win the next election.
But it´s not just the Labour Party, is it? The Liberal Democrats are in the middle of electing a new leader, and I have no doubt their fortunes will revive. The Green Party is not to be sneezed at, UKIP might get the wind back in its sails, the SNP are still rampant....
The Labour Party could come to its senses, stop trying to polarise everything between the Tories and themselves, and start constructing a much broader coalition, in which Labour would be just one player among many.
Because, of course, we still have the disfunctional FPTP voting system. Under this system, electors have to guess who the two front runners are in their own constituency, and vote tactically according to this guess. What would happen, I wonder, if an anti-Tory alliance of parties got together and decided to put up just one candidate against the sitting Tory? That is, after all, the logic of FPTP, which Conservatives defend to the bitter end. The Tories would be massacred.
An improbable scenario, perhaps. But not an impossible one. Labour this time round could end up with a candidate who puts country before party. If, as posters on here have said, Labour are currently a bit lacking in policy, then policy issues are not going to be an insurmountable barrier. Just the usual pride and vanity.
After all, the Liberal Democrats worked with the Conservatives for five years, and the Tories were happy enough to claim all the Lib Dem policies as their own in the recent election. And they still are.
A LD revival under Farron in tacit alliance with a centrist Labour leader such as Kendall or Burnham is a definite possibility. That was part of the New Labour recipie with Paddy Ashdown riding the same sentiment in the country. Some sort of agreement with the SNP would be needed too.
There is plenty to do in rebuilding both parties in the next year while Tories navel gaze and split over Europe. If the LD and Labour parties can together take 40 seats off the Tories then there would be an end to a Conservative government. The alternative would be an interesting coalition rather than a majority government, but very possible.
The Tories only need to lose 20 seats to be out of office.
I think Con on 310 or so would mean Con minority government, it would have to be around 290 before that was not viable. The exact number would of course depend on the makeup of the remainder of the seats.
Amongst many other good reasons; opponents of the HoL should welcome that as the end of one of the justifications for its continued existence. We already appoint some ministers using the HoL route and this would only be another step, not a sea change.
This is the strongest reason for me. it is an absolute anachronism that we send people like Joanna Shields to the HoL just to take on short-term 'czar' type roles in government.
I certainly wouldn't want to exclude elected MPs from serving in the executive but the current arrangements are broken.
I don't see how that would work in practice. In fact, in reality all votes bar confidence ones are to some extent 'free votes' in that an MP voting against a 3-line whip tends to have few if any sanctions taken against them. But if you're elected as a member of a party then you do tend to feel a moral obligation to them (and the party would no doubt make the point should an MP not feel it). I'm also unclear on what the mechanism is in your model for holding a government to account.
Using party vote share in elections doesn't necessarily give parties more power; that depends on the system used. At the moment, under FPTP, unless some form of primaries is introduced, parties have huge control over candidate and hence MP selection. This would be almost as true under any form of single-constituency electoral system. STV gets away from that but also requires voters to have a detailed knowledge of perhaps 20-30 candidates in their constituency, which is, I suspect, asking too much of them.
By contrast, what I call Open List Plus (I don't know if the system has a proper name) allows voters to vote for either a party or a candidate but in either case, the order in which MPs elected is determined by their individual totals: something a party would have little to no control over. The system can still be gamed by parties, by standing fewer candidates than there are vacancies but the risks of doing that are twofold: (1) you can miss out on getting candidates elected if you do better than expected, and (2) you can miss out on votes from people who would have supported a particular type of candidate from your party but doesn't have that option.
Yes, most policies against the whip fail because they violate freedom of association. Politicians choose to belong to parties, and parties also have the right to choose who associates with them.
STV does not require detailed knowledge of perhaps 20-30 candidates. Party labels still exist, and most voters do one of the following: choose a party and then a candidate, then another party, and so on; choose a candidate and then his/her running mates; choose the most local candidate and then other local candidates. From the English perspective, a Tory would not in practice need to know what the Green candidate thinks to know that Ukip or the Lib Dems would be a better transfer destination (the same as AV, actually). And most people have some idea of how much they sympathise with each party. Finally, voters can stop preferencing whenever they feel insufficiently informed about the remaining field.
STV also has a lesson about Open List Plus, which I don't fully understand: mostly, it is advantageous to limit your party's candidates to below the number of vacancies, because party ID is stronger than the net benefit-cost of wide internal ideological diversity, particularly in proportional systems with many parties.
Calum The EU ref is but one thing the Tories will deal with.. it wont rip the party asunder in spite of all the wishful thinking in that area .. The ref will take place and then the country will move on ....it might be a good idea if Scotland tried to do the same
Sure, if you wanted to join an organisation that campaigned on behalf of x, a genuine charity basically, that would be fine.
But political parties: no thanks.
No logos, no slogans. Make people work to understand what their local candidates stand for. Have a fluid system where the executive genuinely has to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, and where MPs can become government ministers even if they don't agree with the views of the PM 100% on all issues.
Make is so that there are different coalitions for each bit of legislation, rather than a system of whipping and blackmail.
There are several things that ought to be done to reduce the power of political parties. Firstly, section 24 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, which allows capricious testators to escape a charge to inheritance tax by devising and bequeathing their property to the big political parties, should be repealed immediately. Secondly, all state funding of political parties, whether by way of Short money or otherwise, should cease. Thirdly, the practice of party whips putting improper pressure on MPs to vote one way, or offering them inducements, whether in the form of offices or other patronage, to vote another way, should be treated for the corruption it is. The whip's seat ought to be vacated as if he was dead, and he should be indicted and punished for bribery and/or wilful misconduct in public office.
You also raise the question of charities. I have no problem with unincorporated associations campaigning for whatever they like. I do have a massive problem with charities campaigning for a change in the law or government policy. Firstly, it is not charitable and illegal. Secondly, there is no reason why some political campaigners masquerading as charities should be entitled to the generous exemptions from direct and indirect taxation which charities enjoy, when other political campaigners are liable to a charge to tax.
I dunno, working to address problems a t a micro level is all very well, but sometimes it's obvious that the main problem is an overall policy. There is a case for e.g. Save the Children arguing the case for policies that help children and criticising policies that they think harm children. To take an extreme example, if they'd been around at the time of Herod, would you feel they should have observed events with a decorous silence, perhaps just helping to ensure that the slaughter was carried out without unnecessary suffering?
Like David Herdson I like the Open List system (doesn't need to be called Open List Plus, open lists work as he describes), which strikes a nice balance of enabling people to vote for a party but choose which variety of representative they want - Corbyn or Kendall, Soubry or Cash.
Going through the details of the well covered Ipsos Mori poll the other day, I noticed the public wanted ministers to be able to freely campaign for either side: 74% to 19%. There's really no good case for Cameron not allowing this, especially as there's a precedent on European referenda.
If we moved to separate the legislature and executive, as in the US, then parties would have far less power over MPs as they would lose to patronage of giving them jobs.
True. I am undecided about this although I know a number of regulars on here support the idea. It is not something I have really given enough thought to or studied enough to work out whether I would like the consequences or not.
I instinctively dislike the idea of a president as I approve of the principles of collective representative decision making. We spent a long time trying to make sure Parliament had power over the previous (admittedly non elected) executive and I am not sure I would agree with rushing back into that.
I guess need to look at the idea in more detail.
I'd be very interested to hear your views if you do give some thought to this. I've always been in favour as it allows people with real expertise to be brought in to work under Parliamentary oversight. Amongst many other good reasons; opponents of the HoL should welcome that as the end of one of the justifications for its continued existence. We already appoint some ministers using the HoL route and this would only be another step, not a sea change.
@JohnLilburne makes a very strong point about the dilution of patronage. The payroll vote would be diminished.
It also addresses the points made downstream in this thread concerning MPs having (real or perceived) responsibilities ranging from being in the Cabinet to dog mess on their high street.
I commend the idea to you.
It's not clear that the American system is optimal from the ease of policy implementation perspective.
Parties like whips and payroll votes because it makes it easier for everyone to get some of their agenda through.
The cost is to non-team players who would like to rebel against their party without consequences. That's fine and we should always praise distinctive and talented individuals, but politics is a team sport.
The usual role of a minister is not really to be a policy expert, but to mediate the mandates of the parliamentary majority through instructions to the dozens or hundreds of genuine policy experts who work for the government on any given topic.
GeoffM FPTP works for the Tories now, but in 1997 for instance the Tories won 30.7% of the vote and only 25% of the seats. They also won 17.5% of the vote in Scotland and 19.5% in Wales but not a single seat in either. FPTP, and to be fair sometimes AV, exaggerate victories and make defeats even worse and make it more difficult for small parties to win representation
Interesting.....are we seeing a Scottish Labour Party emerge:
CONTROVERSIAL plans to end the charitable status of independent schools in Scotland have been unveiled by Labour leadership frontrunner Kezia Dugdale.
The Lothians MSP also pledged to increase taxes for Scotland’s high earners using the new powers coming to Holyrood, to address the gap between rich and poor in state schools – and held out an olive branch to the SNP.
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
So public schools should not speak out in favour of private education?
Calum The EU ref is but one thing the Tories will deal with.. it wont rip the party asunder in spite of all the wishful thinking in that area .. The ref will take place and then the country will move on ....it might be a good idea if Scotland tried to do the same
Its deja vu all over again.
Five years ago it was 'the coalition won't last until October'....then Christmas...then the Spring......
Interesting.....are we seeing a Scottish Labour Party emerge:
CONTROVERSIAL plans to end the charitable status of independent schools in Scotland have been unveiled by Labour leadership frontrunner Kezia Dugdale.
The Lothians MSP also pledged to increase taxes for Scotland’s high earners using the new powers coming to Holyrood, to address the gap between rich and poor in state schools – and held out an olive branch to the SNP.
Every move towards an independent Scottish Labour/Conservative/Unionist/centre-left Party suggests that people on the ground believe that Scottish independence is more likely, I think.
There are several things that ought to be done to reduce the power of political parties. Firstly, section 24 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, which allows capricious testators to escape a charge to inheritance tax by devising and bequeathing their property to the big political parties, should be repealed immediately. Secondly, all state funding of political parties, whether by way of Short money or otherwise, should cease. Thirdly, the practice of party whips putting improper pressure on MPs to vote one way, or offering them inducements, whether in the form of offices or other patronage, to vote another way, should be treated for the corruption it is. The whip's seat ought to be vacated as if he was dead, and he should be indicted and punished for bribery and/or wilful misconduct in public office.
You also raise the question of charities. I have no problem with unincorporated associations campaigning for whatever they like. I do have a massive problem with charities campaigning for a change in the law or government policy. Firstly, it is not charitable and illegal. Secondly, there is no reason why some political campaigners masquerading as charities should be entitled to the generous exemptions from direct and indirect taxation which charities enjoy, when other political campaigners are liable to a charge to tax.
I dunno, working to address problems at a micro level is all very well, but sometimes it's obvious that the main problem is an overall policy. There is a case for e.g. Save the Children arguing the case for policies that help children and criticising policies that they think harm children. To take an extreme example, if they'd been around at the time of Herod, would you feel they should have observed events with a decorous silence, perhaps just helping to ensure that the slaughter was carried out without unnecessary suffering?
Like David Herdson I like the Open List system (doesn't need to be called Open List Plus, open lists work as he describes), which strikes a nice balance of enabling people to vote for a party but choose which variety of representative they want - Corbyn or Kendall, Soubry or Cash.
The difference between Open List and Open List Plus is that the former requires you to vote for a candidate while the latter doesn't. The advantage of OLP is that it doesn't force voters to pick a candidate from a wide range of options when all they really want to do is support a party or party leader. The distribution of seats between parties within a constituency is then determined by the number of votes each party wins (i.e. the total of all their candidates' votes plus the non-candidate votes), but the order in which the candidates are elected is determined by their individual scores (as with normal Open Lists).
'A LD revival under Farron in tacit alliance with a centrist Labour leader such as Kendall or Burnham is a definite possibility. That was part of the New Labour recipie with Paddy Ashdown riding the same sentiment in the country. Some sort of agreement with the SNP would be needed too.
There is plenty to do in rebuilding both parties in the next year while Tories navel gaze and split over Europe. If the LD and Labour parties can together take 40 seats off the Tories then there would be an end to a Conservative government. The alternative would be an interesting coalition rather than a majority government, but very possible.'
'The Tories only need to lose 20 seats to be out of office.'
'I think Con on 310 or so would mean Con minority government, it would have to be around 290 before that was not viable. The exact number would of course depend on the makeup of the remainder of the seats.'
I disagree.Only the Unionists and UKIP would be likely to support a minority Tory Government. The LibDems will surely not wish to touch them with a bargepole this side of 2050. A scenario quite similar to what is likely to have occurred back in 1992 had Major been reduced to circa 312 seats. Kinnock and Ashdown would have voted him out with the support of the smaller parties.
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
So public schools should not speak out in favour of private education?
How is being in favour of public schools a political stance? You're just as likely to find the child of a Labour MP at one as a Conservative MP's child.
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
Interesting.....are we seeing a Scottish Labour Party emerge:
CONTROVERSIAL plans to end the charitable status of independent schools in Scotland have been unveiled by Labour leadership frontrunner Kezia Dugdale.
The Lothians MSP also pledged to increase taxes for Scotland’s high earners using the new powers coming to Holyrood, to address the gap between rich and poor in state schools – and held out an olive branch to the SNP.
Every move towards an independent Scottish Labour/Conservative/Unionist/centre-left Party suggests that people on the ground believe that Scottish independence is more likely, I think.
Or Scottish Labour are coming up with Labour policies......
On devolved matters I think it healthy that the countries pursue different policies - that way we can see what works & reapply.....
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
Banning anything is usually a bad move. If charities are to be banned from campaigning (or, conversely, from taking government contracts), should not the same apply to corporations, or trade unions with public sector workers, or taxpayers - where does the line end?
Transparency is the best solution. Let those who are being hypocritical or pursuing a vested interest be exposed as so doing. The public and the politicians they are trying to lobby will soon respond.
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
So public schools should not speak out in favour of private education?
We can draw a sensible distinction between "public school head teacher does radio interview extolling benefits to country of private education" and "private schools body spends thousands of pounds on billboards in run up to election campaigning against plans to remove charitable status", no matter what our position on private education is or how we feel about charity campaigning activity and political involvement. Quite how a proponent on clamping down on charity lobbying might draw a legally precise line, though, I'm unsure.
The difference between Open List and Open List Plus is that the former requires you to vote for a candidate while the latter doesn't. The advantage of OLP is that it doesn't force voters to pick a candidate from a wide range of options when all they really want to do is support a party or party leader. The distribution of seats between parties within a constituency is then determined by the number of votes each party wins (i.e. the total of all their candidates' votes plus the non-candidate votes), but the order in which the candidates are elected is determined by their individual scores (as with normal Open Lists).
Presumably voters could achieve the same effect under regular open-list STV by numbering the candidates for their favourite party at random.
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
Banning anything is usually a bad move. If charities are to be banned from campaigning (or, conversely, from taking government contracts), should not the same apply to corporations, or trade unions with public sector workers, or taxpayers - where does the line end?
Transparency is the best solution. Let those who are being hypocritical or pursuing a vested interest be exposed as so doing. The public and the politicians they are trying to lobby will soon respond.
Those are straw men. We seem to have forgotten what a "charity" is.
If they want to campaign then campaign politically. But not on my dime. If they want to save fluffy cats then rattle a tin outside Morrisons. I can choose to donate.
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Banning charitable status at private schools will have the opposite intention of that intended as that charitable status helps fund scholarships and bursaries for talented pupils who could not otherwise afford the fees, ending it would make those private schools even more exclusive
I think it's understandable so many people were angry and protesting yesterday. Bloody Conservatives! What makes them think they have a mandate to enact their manifesto, apart from winning a General Election six weeks ago?!
Ho! Ho! Highly satirical. The Tories received the support of under 25% of registered voters at the last election. They got a distortedly large number of MPs because of the dysfunctional nature of the voting system. They can pass laws in Parliament, Mr Dancer, of course they can - but that does not mean that the country is behind them.
2005 - Labour 35.2% of the vote, winning 160+ majority, everything is fine, champagne all around.
2015 - Conservatives 36.1% of the vote, winning a majority of 12, outraged bleating and wringing of hands
Double standards much ?
You are confusing 2005 with 2001. Also your figures are for UK not GB.
Cant recall much bleating at those elections either....
If we had PR, we'd currently have a Conservative government.
The difference between Open List and Open List Plus is that the former requires you to vote for a candidate while the latter doesn't. The advantage of OLP is that it doesn't force voters to pick a candidate from a wide range of options when all they really want to do is support a party or party leader. The distribution of seats between parties within a constituency is then determined by the number of votes each party wins (i.e. the total of all their candidates' votes plus the non-candidate votes), but the order in which the candidates are elected is determined by their individual scores (as with normal Open Lists).
Presumably voters could achieve the same effect under regular open-list STV by numbering the candidates for their favourite party at random.
I don't think so. One reason I don't like systems that require voters to make a choice they don't feel they want to (e.g. between candidates they feel equally well disposed to) is that they won't pick one at random; there'll be a bias in selection, for example to those at the top of the paper. That's why I feel that it'd be a benefit to give voters the option of supporting a party while opting out of picking a candidate (which effectively sub-contracts that part to those who can be bothered to express an opinion).
It's basically the same reason I'm opposed to compulsory voting. I don't want the decisions of those who can be bothered diluted by those who can't.
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
Banning anything is usually a bad move. If charities are to be banned from campaigning (or, conversely, from taking government contracts), should not the same apply to corporations, or trade unions with public sector workers, or taxpayers - where does the line end?
Transparency is the best solution. Let those who are being hypocritical or pursuing a vested interest be exposed as so doing. The public and the politicians they are trying to lobby will soon respond.
Those are straw men. We seem to have forgotten what a "charity" is.
If they want to campaign then campaign politically. But not on my dime. If they want to save fluffy cats then rattle a tin outside Morrisons. I can choose to donate.
Maybe we just disagree on what one is. But it seems to me that it would be very difficult drawing a line between a charity fundraising in support of a good cause and advocating action with the intention of advancing that cause.
Anyway, my time here today's up so thanks for the discussion (as always), and Happy Solstice.
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
Banning anything is usually a bad move. If charities are to be banned from campaigning (or, conversely, from taking government contracts), should not the same apply to corporations, or trade unions with public sector workers, or taxpayers - where does the line end?
Transparency is the best solution. Let those who are being hypocritical or pursuing a vested interest be exposed as so doing. The public and the politicians they are trying to lobby will soon respond.
It ends where you make sensible limits. You would not think transparency sufficient should it come to government agencies taking political stances in elections, so why should outsourced governtment bodies be any different? Perhaps there could be a limit where it only applies if its 25% or more of the funding.
The other problem with exposure as the solution is that it does not happen in reality. The media landscape is entirely dominated by the BBC, which always introduces left-leaning charities as if they are independent, and the parties have such tight spending limits they can never get a message out without it being channelled through the media.
SeanF Agreed, SLab should really be seeking Tory tactical votes at the constituency level, they will not outleft and outnationalist the SNP, if people are given Coke or Pepsi they will pick Coke 'the real thing'. In any case the Scottish Greens already have that ground. Macintosh is probably Scottish Labour's best bet, interestingly he is MSP for Eastwood, if he does not win and does not stand again that could offer an opening for Murphy next year if he wins his old seat back and Dugdale fails to oust Sturgeon or offer a significant improvement in Labour's vote and seat share. Personally, I think next year could see the SNP just lose their majority but have enough seats for a deal with the Greens, UKIP could also pick up a seat or 2 on the list
Interesting.....are we seeing a Scottish Labour Party emerge:
CONTROVERSIAL plans to end the charitable status of independent schools in Scotland have been unveiled by Labour leadership frontrunner Kezia Dugdale.
The Lothians MSP also pledged to increase taxes for Scotland’s high earners using the new powers coming to Holyrood, to address the gap between rich and poor in state schools – and held out an olive branch to the SNP.
Ha Ha Ha, a soundbite from a halfwit and you are impressed. Of all the problems in Scotland , she decides to look at one that would cost hundreds of poor people places at private schools and cost the public more money to have them taught at public schools. Typical Labour save pennies and squander millions on dogma. Perhaps if she had said they would bring state schools up to the private level and look for savings on tax paid by state schools etc , it may have been a chink of light. She is a product of a Labour dinosaur with similar ideas . lost in the past. Far more interesting is UK Labour advertising for all the party jobs in Scotland, totally controlled from , paid by and for UK Labour. There will be no Scottish Labour Party ever if this dullard is leader.
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
So public schools should not speak out in favour of private education?
How is being in favour of public schools a political stance? You're just as likely to find the child of a Labour MP at one as a Conservative MP's child.
Those that do not like charities speaking out on "political issues" tend to get upset by said charities opposing or favouring certain policies proposed by political parties. Thus, if a political party decided advocate the ending of the charitable status of public schools, public schools opposing this would be speaking out on a "political issue". That's why I believe it is ridiculous to stop charities speaking out on "political issues". What people usually mean by this is that they want to stop charities opposing policies that they favour or which are put forward by the political party they support.
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
So public schools should not speak out in favour of private education?
We can draw a sensible distinction between "public school head teacher does radio interview extolling benefits to country of private education" and "private schools body spends thousands of pounds on billboards in run up to election campaigning against plans to remove charitable status", no matter what our position on private education is or how we feel about charity campaigning activity and political involvement. Quite how a proponent on clamping down on charity lobbying might draw a legally precise line, though, I'm unsure.
I completely agree. That's why I'd let the public schools talk out in any way they want and would apply exactly the same principle to any kind of charity.
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
So public schools should not speak out in favour of private education?
How is being in favour of public schools a political stance? You're just as likely to find the child of a Labour MP at one as a Conservative MP's child.
Those that do not like charities speaking out on "political issues" tend to get upset by said charities opposing or favouring certain policies proposed by political parties. Thus, if a political party decided advocate the ending of the charitable status of public schools, public schools opposing this would be speaking out on a "political issue". That's why I believe it is ridiculous to stop charities speaking out on "political issues". What people usually mean by this is that they want to stop charities opposing policies that they favour or which are put forward by the political party they support.
Rubbish. Are you naturally this stupid or it is trolling?
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
The Tories will not prosper on that front , they are the dodo party and life span is taking its toll on them. They are on a terminal decline, sockpuppets of London party and going absolutely nowhere. They only exist to get the dregs of the consolation list seats at Holyrood , otherwise a tandem would be all that was needed for MP's and MSP's combined.
SO Indeed, but FPTP was endorsed by the voters in 2011
It sure was and we are not going to see any change. The system is deeply flawed and leads to bad government, in my view, but it is what it is and we have to live with it. I regret that, but the people have spoken.
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
So public schools should not speak out in favour of private education?
How is being in favour of public schools a political stance? You're just as likely to find the child of a Labour MP at one as a Conservative MP's child.
Those that do not like charities speaking out on "political issues" tend to get upset by said charities opposing or favouring certain policies proposed by political parties. Thus, if a political party decided advocate the ending of the charitable status of public schools, public schools opposing this would be speaking out on a "political issue". That's why I believe it is ridiculous to stop charities speaking out on "political issues". What people usually mean by this is that they want to stop charities opposing policies that they favour or which are put forward by the political party they support.
Rubbish. Are you naturally this stupid or it is trolling?
SeanF If we had PR in 2005 we would have had a Labour/LD coalition, in 2010 a Tory/LD coalition, in 2015 a Tory/UKIP coalition
@HYUFD and @Sean_F That may very well be true - depending on the form of PR - if you use the same vote numbers as recorded at those elections.
However I was wobbling between two options at the election just gone. With preferences available I would probably have put the candidate who got my 2015 vote as my second preference due to local circumstances. So the direct conversion is not an exact science.
Banning anything is usually a bad move. If charities are to be banned from campaigning (or, conversely, from taking government contracts), should not the same apply to corporations, or trade unions with public sector workers, or taxpayers - where does the line end?
Transparency is the best solution. Let those who are being hypocritical or pursuing a vested interest be exposed as so doing. The public and the politicians they are trying to lobby will soon respond.
Charities are entitled to certain privileges which other corporations, unincorporated associations and individuals are not. Firstly, charities are exempt from a whole series of direct and indirect taxes. Secondly, a charity can be established which is of perpetual duration. Once property is dedicated to charity, it cannot be applied for any other purpose. A charity need not have certain objects or ascertainable beneficiaries. No other person is entitled to dispose of his property in this way. I cannot as a matter of law establish a trust for the promotion of the squaring of circles. It is right, therefore, that charities are subject to regulation by courts of equity, and by Parliament.
It is a central principle of the English law of charity that property cannot be dedicated for purposes which involve changing the law or government policy. This is because a charity must satisfy a court that it is established for the public benefit. Were a charity to be allowed to engage in political campaigning, it would require the courts to rule, as a matter of law, whether or not a political policy was for the public benefit.
Banning anything is usually a bad move. If charities are to be banned from campaigning (or, conversely, from taking government contracts), should not the same apply to corporations, or trade unions with public sector workers, or taxpayers - where does the line end?
Transparency is the best solution. Let those who are being hypocritical or pursuing a vested interest be exposed as so doing. The public and the politicians they are trying to lobby will soon respond.
Charities are entitled to certain privileges which other corporations, unincorporated associations and individuals are not. Firstly, charities are exempt from a whole series of direct and indirect taxes. Secondly, a charity can be established which is of perpetual duration. Once property is dedicated to charity, it cannot be applied for any other purpose. A charity need not have certain objects or ascertainable beneficiaries. No other person is entitled to dispose of his property in this way. I cannot as a matter of law establish a trust for the promotion of the squaring of circles. It is right, therefore, that charities are subject to regulation by courts of equity, and by Parliament.
It is a central principle of the English law of charity that property cannot be dedicated for purposes which involve changing the law or government policy. This is because a charity must satisfy a court that it is established for the public benefit. Were a charity to be allowed to engage in political campaigning, it would require the courts to rule, as a matter of law, whether or not a political policy was for the public benefit.
Given that and given that we have not seen charities taken to court, there's no problem is there?
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
But, even if only 25% of Scots are receptive to right-wing views, that gives the Conservatives an opening.
'Any mistake or poor polling will inevitability lead to speculation about the new leader’s future add in the likes of Alastair Campbell saying he will ‘Not To Bite His Tongue’ If New Labour Leader Looks Set To Fail in 2020'
The problem is: how will Campbell or anyone else know this? The last five years were replete with 10 point Labour poll leads and 'Ed's played a blinder' comments across the media. Of course, many of us on here knew Miliband was a dud from the outset, but when were we ever consulted?
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
But, even if only 25% of Scots are receptive to right-wing views, that gives the Conservatives an opening.
Receptive to right wing views or not , people will not vote for the Tories as they are currently constituted. They are London sock puppets and will continue to decline. You will be hard pushed to find a young Tory.
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
But, even if only 25% of Scots are receptive to right-wing views, that gives the Conservatives an opening.
Quite - there is a very solid core of Tory voting in Scotland which has changed little in recent years - the two currently in steep decline are Labour and the LDs. Of course the future for all 3 is very uncertain but talk of visceral hatred for the Tories is nonsensical. That is all in the minds of the guardianistas and was most recently demonstrated as nonsense last May. Some on here really need to grow up.
'Any mistake or poor polling will inevitability lead to speculation about the new leader’s future add in the likes of Alastair Campbell saying he will ‘Not To Bite His Tongue’ If New Labour Leader Looks Set To Fail in 2020'
The problem is: how will Campbell or anyone else know this? The last five years were replete with 10 point Labour poll leads and 'Ed's played a blinder' comments across the media. Of course, many of us on here knew Miliband was a dud from the outset, but when were we ever consulted?
In retrospect, Ed should've been ousted immediately after the European elections last year. A party which barely avoids coming THIRD in a midterm election is not on course for government, and doing it then would've just about left enough time for a new leader to settle in and establish him-/herself.
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
But, even if only 25% of Scots are receptive to right-wing views, that gives the Conservatives an opening.
Quite - there is a very solid core of Tory voting in Scotland which has changed little in recent years - the two currently in steep decline are Labour and the LDs. Of course the future for all 3 is very uncertain but talk of visceral hatred for the Tories is nonsensical. That is all in the minds of the guardianistas and was most recently demonstrated as nonsense last May. Some on here really need to grow up.
Yes a decline every election is doing well for them, they are only saved by the improved life expectancy , as their elder supporters last longer. However it is evident they are in terminal decline, and will remain so till they discover they are supposed to be the Scottish Conservatives.
'We'd have had coalitions for a lot longer than that - and it probably would have served the country a whole lot better. '
Why & on what evidence ?
It's a long time since any party got close to 50% of the vote; thus, it seems reasonable to assume that with PR we would have had many more coalition governments than we have had. If you look at other countries with PR systems of whatever kind it is unusual for a single party to govern alone
In my view, the FPTP system is all about confrontation and emphasising differences. That makes it much harder to find agreement on solving long-term challenges. We see it with issues as diverse as the NHS, housing and the constitutional settlement.
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
But, even if only 25% of Scots are receptive to right-wing views, that gives the Conservatives an opening.
You will be hard pushed to find a young Tory.
That has been said for decades.......
So either being a Tory makes you immortal.....or people become Tory as they get older....and what's more....vote....
Given that and given that we have not seen charities taken to court, there's no problem is there?
The fact that the Attorney General and the Charity Commission do not enforce the law does not mean that charities ought to break it. Would you really be happy if a charity set up for prevention of poverty expended trust monies campaigning to dismantle the welfare state, in the sincere belief that such policy would alleviate poverty? How about if a charity set up for the purposes of conflict resolution were to spend charitable funds campaigning for the invasion of Iran, in the sincere belief that this would lead to world peace? I doubt it. There is nothing to stop people engaging in political campaigns with their own money, but when money is impressed with a public trust, it must not be used for political purposes.
'We'd have had coalitions for a lot longer than that - and it probably would have served the country a whole lot better. '
Why & on what evidence ?
It's a long time since any party got close to 50% of the vote; thus, it seems reasonable to assume that with PR we would have had many more coalition governments than we have had. If you look at other countries with PR systems of whatever kind it is unusual for a single party to govern alone
In my view, the FPTP system is all about confrontation and emphasising differences. That makes it much harder to find agreement on solving long-term challenges. We see it with issues as diverse as the NHS, housing and the constitutional settlement.
I would agree. Your second paragraph is particularly pertinent.
Given that and given that we have not seen charities taken to court, there's no problem is there?
The fact that the Attorney General and the Charity Commission do not enforce the law does not mean that charities ought to break it. Would you really be happy if a charity set up for prevention of poverty expended trust monies campaigning to dismantle the welfare state, in the sincere belief that such policy would alleviate poverty? How about if a charity set up for the purposes of conflict resolution were to spend charitable funds campaigning for the invasion of Iran, in the sincere belief that this would lead to world peace? I doubt it. There is nothing to stop people engaging in political campaigns with their own money, but when money is impressed with a public trust, it must not be used for political purposes.
I would have no real problem with either of those two scenarios. I have much more of an issue with people saying charities are acting politically when what they actually mean is that charities are saying things I do not agree with. If the Charity Commission and the attorney general have chosen not to take any charities to court I suspect it is because they do not feel any charities have flouted the law.
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
But, even if only 25% of Scots are receptive to right-wing views, that gives the Conservatives an opening.
Quite - there is a very solid core of Tory voting in Scotland which has changed little in recent years - the two currently in steep decline are Labour and the LDs. Of course the future for all 3 is very uncertain but talk of visceral hatred for the Tories is nonsensical. That is all in the minds of the guardianistas and was most recently demonstrated as nonsense last May. Some on here really need to grow up.
Yes a decline every election is doing well for them,
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
But, even if only 25% of Scots are receptive to right-wing views, that gives the Conservatives an opening.
You will be hard pushed to find a young Tory.
That has been said for decades.......
So either being a Tory makes you immortal.....or people become Tory as they get older....and what's more....vote....
The numbers do not support your theory, they have continually declined since Maggie was ousted.
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
But, even if only 25% of Scots are receptive to right-wing views, that gives the Conservatives an opening.
Quite - there is a very solid core of Tory voting in Scotland which has changed little in recent years - the two currently in steep decline are Labour and the LDs. Of course the future for all 3 is very uncertain but talk of visceral hatred for the Tories is nonsensical. That is all in the minds of the guardianistas and was most recently demonstrated as nonsense last May. Some on here really need to grow up.
Yes a decline every election is doing well for them,
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
But, even if only 25% of Scots are receptive to right-wing views, that gives the Conservatives an opening.
Quite - there is a very solid core of Tory voting in Scotland which has changed little in recent years - the two currently in steep decline are Labour and the LDs. Of course the future for all 3 is very uncertain but talk of visceral hatred for the Tories is nonsensical. That is all in the minds of the guardianistas and was most recently demonstrated as nonsense last May. Some on here really need to grow up.
Yes a decline every election is doing well for them,
Now I know 'numbers' is not a Nat strong suit, but can't you tell the difference between 'decline' and 'increase'?
You'll be telling us Scotland props up England next.....
Nice use of statistics to try to promote your fibs, can you show the % of the vote against those same numbers so we can see how relevant they are in reality.
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
But, even if only 25% of Scots are receptive to right-wing views, that gives the Conservatives an opening.
Quite - there is a very solid core of Tory voting in Scotland which has changed little in recent years - the two currently in steep decline are Labour and the LDs. Of course the future for all 3 is very uncertain but talk of visceral hatred for the Tories is nonsensical. That is all in the minds of the guardianistas and was most recently demonstrated as nonsense last May. Some on here really need to grow up.
Yes a decline every election is doing well for them,
EPG Not necessarily, the CSU in Bavaria is an ally of the CDU but runs on a separate platform, Scottish voters are more likely to be sympathetic to unionist parties that focus on Scottish concerns than run on a Westminster dictat
If SLAB are entering a pissing contest with the SNP to see who can be the most left-wing, that must open up ground for the Conservatives.
Not if they are doing it to show how much they hate the Conservatives!
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
But, even if only 25% of Scots are receptive to right-wing views, that gives the Conservatives an opening.
You will be hard pushed to find a young Tory.
That has been said for decades.......
So either being a Tory makes you immortal.....or people become Tory as they get older....and what's more....vote....
The numbers do not support your theory, they have continually declined since Maggie was ousted.
Why don't you post how many votes the Tories have got in the last 4 GEs - oh look - someone has.
Tory votes in Scotland have increased since the turn of the century - and they actually increased in 1992 after Thatcher was ousted.
Comments
As to 'survive quite nicely' I doubt the electorate's view of their politicians is very different from those in the UK - the only difference being we're more likely to know some of them personally.....
I instinctively dislike the idea of a president as I approve of the principles of collective representative decision making. We spent a long time trying to make sure Parliament had power over the previous (admittedly non elected) executive and I am not sure I would agree with rushing back into that.
I guess need to look at the idea in more detail.
Using party vote share in elections doesn't necessarily give parties more power; that depends on the system used. At the moment, under FPTP, unless some form of primaries is introduced, parties have huge control over candidate and hence MP selection. This would be almost as true under any form of single-constituency electoral system. STV gets away from that but also requires voters to have a detailed knowledge of perhaps 20-30 candidates in their constituency, which is, I suspect, asking too much of them.
By contrast, what I call Open List Plus (I don't know if the system has a proper name) allows voters to vote for either a party or a candidate but in either case, the order in which MPs elected is determined by their individual totals: something a party would have little to no control over. The system can still be gamed by parties, by standing fewer candidates than there are vacancies but the risks of doing that are twofold: (1) you can miss out on getting candidates elected if you do better than expected, and (2) you can miss out on votes from people who would have supported a particular type of candidate from your party but doesn't have that option.
Your fellow countrymen would appear not to agree with your views. There was an independence referendum held, the Nationalists could not provide a sufficiently persuasive case and lost. Your own countrymen at a secret ballot decided to remain within the union. With that democratic act completed and the fact you are represented in the union I cannot see how you are ruled by another country?
However even even when you lose in a democratic vote you are still not happy. Are you Bad losers, sore losers whatever. It's done, it's done for a generation and no matter how much of want it ( and believe you me so do we down here) your own countryman turned away and left you standing on the field of battle on your own. Time to get over it and move on or is it the fact that a right wing government gave you that democratic choice to exercise and then you well... Failed to excessive that right? Before I am referred to as a Tory again as regulars know I am ABL. In that I have the SNP to sincerely thank because the SNP utterly stuffed Labour for a generation.
That's all I am going to say on Scotland because I am just utterly sick of the entire bloody subject
You also raise the question of charities. I have no problem with unincorporated associations campaigning for whatever they like. I do have a massive problem with charities campaigning for a change in the law or government policy. Firstly, it is not charitable and illegal. Secondly, there is no reason why some political campaigners masquerading as charities should be entitled to the generous exemptions from direct and indirect taxation which charities enjoy, when other political campaigners are liable to a charge to tax.
Is it a good idea to vaccinate against, let's say, tuberculosis, polio or smallpox? Or should we just wait for there to be an outbreak and then treat the symptoms?
In my view, prevention is better than cure: the foreign aid budget should be seen as part of our overall foreign affairs and defence strategy rather than being viewed in isolation.
Of course there are reasonable argument over "how much" and "how should it be spent", but just to dismiss the concept is a foolish approach.
(And, as an aside, a huge amount of the Gates money gets spent in the UK. I sit on the finance & planning committee for a university and Gates is one of their major strategic partners. That funds important, value added, jobs in the UK academic sector)
The Tory argument was that everybody ought to vote against AV, with the implication that they would introduce STV in due course. Some people were fooled by that line. And the Labour Party´s machinations were atrocious.
It's only been in the last 5 years (at least in the UK) that DfID has been reformed to try and at least measure the outcomes of what they do/ That's the one good thing that Mitchell did in his career.
I'm not sure that size is relevant though - the Gibraltar electorate is less than 20k and party politics here is very stark, overt, confrontational and tribal.
It's true about being closer to MPs in smaller communities. I am related to MPs on both sides of the aisle and I count about a third of them as personal friends outside of politics. That greatly helps the sense of engagement. You can actually influence government policy over coffee.
In the Jsy/Gsy/Gib scenarios size doesn't matter and tradition/history do. It's more how the parliamentary system has evolved rather than fitting a size to a model. And its what the people have settled on.
Which is why the usually sensible DavidL is deliberately misrepresenting my point for shallow debating purposes when he dismisses my random example of Jersey as, in his words, being the "best" example anyone apparently can come up with. It's not - its just an example. Nothing more.
Your fellow countrymen would appear not to agree with your views. There was an independence referendum held, the Nationalists could not provide a sufficiently persuasive case and lost. Your own countrymen at a secret ballot decided to remain within the union. With that democratic act completed and the fact you are represented in the union I cannot see how you are ruled by another country?
However even even when you lose in a democratic vote you are still not happy. Are you Bad losers, sore losers whatever. It's done, it's done for a generation and no matter how much of want it ( and believe you me so do we down here) your own countryman turned away and left you standing on the field of battle on your own. Time to get over it and move on or is it the fact that a right wing government gave you that democratic choice to exercise and then you well... Failed to excessive that right? Before I am referred to as a Tory again as regulars know I am ABL. In that I have the SNP to sincerely thank because the SNP utterly stuffed Labour for a generation.
That's all I am going to say on Scotland because I am just utterly sick of the entire bloody subject
Just as we are sick to the back teeth of Tories, Westminster Tories. Constantly gloating and denigrating the SNP and Scotland. Practice what you preach.
On the other hand, there were undoubtedly some Lib Dems and the like who voted against AV specifically because it's not STV.
(As an aside, AV isn't the worst of all worlds; SV is).
@JohnLilburne makes a very strong point about the dilution of patronage. The payroll vote would be diminished.
It also addresses the points made downstream in this thread concerning MPs having (real or perceived) responsibilities ranging from being in the Cabinet to dog mess on their high street.
I commend the idea to you.
Many moons ago on here I said that, sadly, the BBC licence fee was no longer fit for purpose and would have a limited lifespan. In return I got accused of being anti-BBC, not understanding technology, etc, etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33215141
Classy.
If I hoped that your family and friends would die to reduce the lefty vote in your constituency would you treat that in the same frivolous way?
I certainly wouldn't want to exclude elected MPs from serving in the executive but the current arrangements are broken.
STV does not require detailed knowledge of perhaps 20-30 candidates. Party labels still exist, and most voters do one of the following: choose a party and then a candidate, then another party, and so on; choose a candidate and then his/her running mates; choose the most local candidate and then other local candidates. From the English perspective, a Tory would not in practice need to know what the Green candidate thinks to know that Ukip or the Lib Dems would be a better transfer destination (the same as AV, actually). And most people have some idea of how much they sympathise with each party. Finally, voters can stop preferencing whenever they feel insufficiently informed about the remaining field.
STV also has a lesson about Open List Plus, which I don't fully understand: mostly, it is advantageous to limit your party's candidates to below the number of vacancies, because party ID is stronger than the net benefit-cost of wide internal ideological diversity, particularly in proportional systems with many parties.
It reminded me that nobody is perfect.
Like David Herdson I like the Open List system (doesn't need to be called Open List Plus, open lists work as he describes), which strikes a nice balance of enabling people to vote for a party but choose which variety of representative they want - Corbyn or Kendall, Soubry or Cash.
Parties like whips and payroll votes because it makes it easier for everyone to get some of their agenda through.
The cost is to non-team players who would like to rebel against their party without consequences. That's fine and we should always praise distinctive and talented individuals, but politics is a team sport.
The usual role of a minister is not really to be a policy expert, but to mediate the mandates of the parliamentary majority through instructions to the dozens or hundreds of genuine policy experts who work for the government on any given topic.
CONTROVERSIAL plans to end the charitable status of independent schools in Scotland have been unveiled by Labour leadership frontrunner Kezia Dugdale.
The Lothians MSP also pledged to increase taxes for Scotland’s high earners using the new powers coming to Holyrood, to address the gap between rich and poor in state schools – and held out an olive branch to the SNP.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-will-scrap-tax-breaks-for-private-schools-1-3808168
I certainly think any charity taking public money should be banned from taking a political stance. They have a huge vested interest and are effectively an arm of the state.
Five years ago it was 'the coalition won't last until October'....then Christmas...then the Spring......
There is plenty to do in rebuilding both parties in the next year while Tories navel gaze and split over Europe. If the LD and Labour parties can together take 40 seats off the Tories then there would be an end to a Conservative government. The alternative would be an interesting coalition rather than a majority government, but very possible.'
'The Tories only need to lose 20 seats to be out of office.'
'I think Con on 310 or so would mean Con minority government, it would have to be around 290 before that was not viable. The exact number would of course depend on the makeup of the remainder of the seats.'
I disagree.Only the Unionists and UKIP would be likely to support a minority Tory Government. The LibDems will surely not wish to touch them with a bargepole this side of 2050. A scenario quite similar to what is likely to have occurred back in 1992 had Major been reduced to circa 312 seats. Kinnock and Ashdown would have voted him out with the support of the smaller parties.
You're just as likely to find the child of a Labour MP at one as a Conservative MP's child.
On devolved matters I think it healthy that the countries pursue different policies - that way we can see what works & reapply.....
Transparency is the best solution. Let those who are being hypocritical or pursuing a vested interest be exposed as so doing. The public and the politicians they are trying to lobby will soon respond.
If they want to campaign then campaign politically. But not on my dime.
If they want to save fluffy cats then rattle a tin outside Morrisons. I can choose to donate.
It's basically the same reason I'm opposed to compulsory voting. I don't want the decisions of those who can be bothered diluted by those who can't.
Anyway, my time here today's up so thanks for the discussion (as always), and Happy Solstice.
The other problem with exposure as the solution is that it does not happen in reality. The media landscape is entirely dominated by the BBC, which always introduces left-leaning charities as if they are independent, and the parties have such tight spending limits they can never get a message out without it being channelled through the media.
Personally I would be happy to adopt the Scottish form of PR. It seems to work well.
Perhaps if she had said they would bring state schools up to the private level and look for savings on tax paid by state schools etc , it may have been a chink of light. She is a product of a Labour dinosaur with similar ideas . lost in the past.
Far more interesting is UK Labour advertising for all the party jobs in Scotland, totally controlled from , paid by and for UK Labour.
There will be no Scottish Labour Party ever if this dullard is leader.
Are you naturally this stupid or it is trolling?
Rule one of PB.com should be not to underestimate how much the vast majority of Scots hate the Conservatives. It sometimes seems to be forgotten around here, where some sincerely expect 7-9 Scottish Conservative seats at GE2020.
However I was wobbling between two options at the election just gone. With preferences available I would probably have put the candidate who got my 2015 vote as my second preference due to local circumstances. So the direct conversion is not an exact science.
It is a central principle of the English law of charity that property cannot be dedicated for purposes which involve changing the law or government policy. This is because a charity must satisfy a court that it is established for the public benefit. Were a charity to be allowed to engage in political campaigning, it would require the courts to rule, as a matter of law, whether or not a political policy was for the public benefit.
'We'd have had coalitions for a lot longer than that - and it probably would have served the country a whole lot better. '
Why & on what evidence ?
The problem is: how will Campbell or anyone else know this? The last five years were replete with 10 point Labour poll leads and 'Ed's played a blinder' comments across the media. Of course, many of us on here knew Miliband was a dud from the outset, but when were we ever consulted?
In my view, the FPTP system is all about confrontation and emphasising differences. That makes it much harder to find agreement on solving long-term challenges. We see it with issues as diverse as the NHS, housing and the constitutional settlement.
So either being a Tory makes you immortal.....or people become Tory as they get older....and what's more....vote....
2001: 360,658
2005: 369,388
2010: 412,855
2015: 434,097
Now I know 'numbers' is not a Nat strong suit, but can't you tell the difference between 'decline' and 'increase'?
You'll be telling us Scotland props up England next.....
Tory votes in Scotland have increased since the turn of the century - and they actually increased in 1992 after Thatcher was ousted.
The big drop came in 1997....
But apart from that, you're bang on.....