I made some comments yesterday about a post-EU Britain. Refining my thinking overnight, I'm wondering if, in his recent travels in the North, the Prime Minister is wondering what EFTA might look like if Britain became a member. Currently, EFTA has, I believe, four members but if Britain joined (or re-joined), EFTA would be transformed.
I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route. With Britain in the lead, the new EFTA could fundamentally re-negotiate its status vis-à-vis the EU, NAFTA and other trading blocs but operating as a loose association of nations operating as a free market free trade area but that's all.
How would we join EFTA without at the same time joining the EEA and remaining part of the single market and the free movement of labour. All good stuff, but where's the difference? How does keeping out of Schengen fit in to all this?
EFTA membership does not require membership of the EEA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but not of the EEA.
EFTA negotiates its own free trade deals with other countries. Indeed it had a FTA with Canada for many years before the EU finally got one.
Schengen is your normal red herring. Neither membership of EFTA nor the EEA requires membership of Schengen.
Schengen is not a red herring ... It is a real and present danger to our country and we are only out of it because we can veto ourselves out of it from within the EU. EFTA is a pretty meaningless organisation and the notion of us joining it and making it something wonderful is laughable.
As with everything else you say about the European question you are completely wrong. Schengen membership is a voluntary for any country outside the EU. Membership of the EU does not make a blind bit of difference to whether or not we are in Schengen and there would be absolutely no requirement for us to join if we left the EU.
Once again you demonstrate your profound ignorance of the subject.
Interesting thoughts from Chris Mullin - I'm inclined to think that, given the situation, this is Labour's best hope.
Jeremy needs to be thinking about an electoral pact with the Lib Dems and the Greens. In a list of key marginal seats, there needs to be just one anti-Tory candidate. In one or two places, Totnes for example, and certainly one of the Brighton seats, it will be the Greens. In many places it will be the Labour candidate. And in quite a lot of places it needs to be the Liberal Democrat candidate.
Now the tribalists on all sides will start jumping up and down at the suggestion. But if they want to get real, given the political climate in which we live, this is the only hope of getting a non-Tory majority in the foreseeable future, and it needs to be thought about very seriously.
PS Can I add my name to those commending Richard Nabavi for his overview of Irish politics, and also Nick Palmer for his assessment of the state of the EU referendum. I'm a bit snowed at the moment so I am mostly picking up threads 2 or 3 at a time.
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.
I'm not sure that a rebuttal that involves "revealing" facts listed on his Wikipedia site with overtones of a Bilderberg conspiracy theory is particularly effective, a few days later or on the spot.
No, a rebuttal means making sure the information is got out to as wide a public as possible so they know where his loyalties really lie.
The same should be done for people like Professor Iain Begg who keeps being rolled out by the media as some sort of impartial academic expert without ever mentioning the fact that he was a long time Council Member of the Federal Trust that campaigns for UK membership of a Federal EU.
Michael Froman is the US's Trade Representative. Are you suggesting that his loyalties don't really lie to the US?
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.
I'm not sure that a rebuttal that involves "revealing" facts listed on his Wikipedia site with overtones of a Bilderberg conspiracy theory is particularly effective, a few days later or on the spot.
It's a "Bilderberg conspiracy theory" to point out that someone who makes a pro-EU argument was previously in receipt of a hefty salary of the EU? I guess that's another one in the antifrank repetoir, after saying that those that disagree with you "howl at the moon".
Im on the fence at the moment, i think in the round theres not much in it between remaining in and leaving. The advantages and disadvantages more than cancel each other out. One thing i dont like though, is being played. Farage just exposed someone trying to play me. Well done Nigel.
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.
I'm not sure that a rebuttal that involves "revealing" facts listed on his Wikipedia site with overtones of a Bilderberg conspiracy theory is particularly effective, a few days later or on the spot.
No, a rebuttal means making sure the information is got out to as wide a public as possible so they know where his loyalties really lie.
The same should be done for people like Professor Iain Begg who keeps being rolled out by the media as some sort of impartial academic expert without ever mentioning the fact that he was a long time Council Member of the Federal Trust that campaigns for UK membership of a Federal EU.
Michael Froman is the US's Trade Representative. Are you suggesting that his loyalties don't really lie to the US?
You can have loyalties in more than one direction. What is clear is that his loyalties don't include the best interests of the UK.
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.
I'm not sure that a rebuttal that involves "revealing" facts listed on his Wikipedia site with overtones of a Bilderberg conspiracy theory is particularly effective, a few days later or on the spot.
It's a "Bilderberg conspiracy theory" to point out that someone who makes a pro-EU argument was previously in receipt of a hefty salary of the EU? I guess that's another one in the antifrank repetoir, after saying that those that disagree with you "howl at the moon".
It's straight out of la-la land to suggest that he owes any loyalty to anyone other than the US government. Have we reached the point where merely to have had distant past employment by an EU institution renders someone irredeemably tainted?
... snip ... And that's where I disagree most profoundly with you. Political parties are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. It's a misreading of their nature and of their role to say that they're overrepresented. You might as well say that MPs are overrepresented. Parties are a transmission mechanism through which the public can make their views known. Imperfect, to be sure, but the best available. Any party which becomes too distant from its natural support, or which simply loses its way will firstly find its support fall and if that continues, will find itself replaced by rivals. By contrast, how do you get rid of an 'expert'? Still more difficult, how do you get rid of a sector which might once have had a purpose but has become anachronistic? It's daft enough that bishops are still there, based on their relevance in the Middle Ages but at least the Commons managed to do away with university seats and the like. It would be a wholly retrograde step to start reintroducing them.
I disagree. You have to look at what the purpose of the HoL is, and how that purpose can best be achieved. To address your concerns:
A Commission could decide on what areas are represented, and the basic rules. This could reconvene (say) every ten years to decide on whether the current make-up is still valid. And it would be hard to form blocks, as there will be few people in each block, compared to the party-political HOL system we have where there are hundreds of men and women mindlessly voting in each block.
Let's say it's decided that civil engineering should have two representatives. It could be left up to the civil engineering community who should represent them: they might decide one is the previous year's president of the ICE (elected by members each year); it is up to them how they choose the other. Periods of service could also be left up to them, up to a maximum. Members of the Lords should be able to resign, and another chosen to replace them.
This will mean that we will have experts examining the laws that come from the Commons, not a bunch of party hacks who leave their brains at the door when it comes to voting.
I'm not saying that political parties are overrepresented: I'm saying that having too many political-party representatives in the HoL prevents it from doing its job properly. As evidence, just look at the voting record in the last week: the parties voted more or less in big blocks. The jewels in the crown of the HoL, particularly in debates, are the crossbenchers, who actually seem to have minds of their own.
If anything, there is a danger that such a HoL might show up the poor levels of debate and lawmaking in the HoC. And if that means we get a better, more professional HoC as well, then so be it.
In your mind, how will an elected HoL allow it to perform its role better?
''Labour has yet to learn that choosing an unelectable leader means you will not be elected. ''
Labour's biggest problem is the ludicrous hyperbole of its critique.
Britain is some kind of Victorian nightmare country out of Hard Times. The government took power in a coup.
Its just absurd, and fewer are listening to it.
They do really seem to think that we are living in some Dickensian nightmare, with orphan children starving on the streets, disabled people murdered by government agencies etc.
On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.
Governments make mistakes.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.
Ah.
The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that.
That sounds very SNP, Chas. "The people" is not 36.9% of those who cast a vote.
No, but it reflects 650 individual contests in constituencies whose out of date boundaries were broadly agreed to favour labour to an unfair degree.
Clearly they didn't though, did they? We have the voting system that we have, but it is self evident that a party elected by 36.9% of those who voted is not close to representing "The People". The SNP makes similar claims about speaking for Scotland, when clearly it does not.
In 650 separate constituencies "the People" selected an individual to represent their interests.
A majority of those representatives supported the proposed changes.
It really is that simple.
That is not the same as "the people". Most of the people did not vote Tory. It really is that simple.
The People's Representatives represent the People and speak on their behalf.
I disagree. You have to look at what the purpose of the HoL is, and how that purpose can best be achieved. To address your concerns:
A Commission could decide on what areas are represented, and the basic rules. This could reconvene (say) every ten years to decide on whether the current make-up is still valid. And it would be hard to form blocks, as there will be few people in each block, compared to the party-political HOL system we have where there are hundreds of men and women mindlessly voting in each block.
Let's say it's decided that civil engineering should have two representatives. It could be left up to the civil engineering community who should represent them: they might decide one is the previous year's president of the ICE (elected by members each year); it is up to them how they choose the other. Periods of service could also be left up to them, up to a maximum. Members of the Lords should be able to resign, and another chosen to replace them.
This will mean that we will have experts examining the laws that come from the Commons, not a bunch of party hacks who leave their brains at the door when it comes to voting.
I'm not saying that political parties are overrepresented: I'm saying that having too many political-party representatives in the HoL prevents it from doing its job properly. As evidence, just look at the voting record in the last week: the parties voted more or less in big blocks. The jewels in the crown of the HoL, particularly in debates, are the crossbenchers, who actually seem to have minds of their own.
If anything, there is a danger that such a HoL might show up the poor levels of debate and lawmaking in the HoC. And if that means we get a better, more professional HoC as well, then so be it.
In your mind, how will an elected HoL allow it to perform its role better?
I'm with you Josias. The whole premise of David's objections seem to be that it is impossible for someone who is an expert in a given field to look impartially at an issue and come to a position based on the best interests of the country. That is a very cynical view of people.
I made some comments yesterday about a post-EU Britain. Refining my thinking overnight, I'm wondering if, in his recent travels in the North, the Prime Minister is wondering what EFTA might look like if Britain became a member. Currently, EFTA has, I believe, four members but if Britain joined (or re-joined), EFTA would be transformed.
I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route. With Britain in the lead, the new EFTA could fundamentally re-negotiate its status vis-à-vis the EU, NAFTA and other trading blocs but operating as a loose association of nations operating as a free market free trade area but that's all.
Interesting thoughts from Chris Mullin - I'm inclined to think that, given the situation, this is Labour's best hope.
Jeremy needs to be thinking about an electoral pact with the Lib Dems and the Greens. In a list of key marginal seats, there needs to be just one anti-Tory candidate. In one or two places, Totnes for example, and certainly one of the Brighton seats, it will be the Greens. In many places it will be the Labour candidate. And in quite a lot of places it needs to be the Liberal Democrat candidate.
Now the tribalists on all sides will start jumping up and down at the suggestion. But if they want to get real, given the political climate in which we live, this is the only hope of getting a non-Tory majority in the foreseeable future, and it needs to be thought about very seriously.
PS Can I add my name to those commending Richard Nabavi for his overview of Irish politics, and also Nick Palmer for his assessment of the state of the EU referendum. I'm a bit snowed at the moment so I am mostly picking up threads 2 or 3 at a time.
Electoral pacts? Doesn't sound very democratic, politicians fiddling the system to gain power.
I await comments from those who have been so vocal down thread about the Tories 'stealing' the election in 2015.
I made some comments yesterday about a post-EU Britain. Refining my thinking overnight, I'm wondering if, in his recent travels in the North, the Prime Minister is wondering what EFTA might look like if Britain became a member. Currently, EFTA has, I believe, four members but if Britain joined (or re-joined), EFTA would be transformed.
I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route. With Britain in the lead, the new EFTA could fundamentally re-negotiate its status vis-à-vis the EU, NAFTA and other trading blocs but operating as a loose association of nations operating as a free market free trade area but that's all.
A suggestion worthy of a great deal of consideration. I am still inclined towards EEA membership but your ideas are certainly full of merit.
Thank you for the kind word, Richard. I want LEAVE to have a coherent alternative to offer and I think this could be it. A new EFTA, led by Britain, offering the benefit of a free trade free market bloc without the concomitant obligations on freedom of movement of labour and social integration, would, I think, be hugely attractive to those who, while despairing of the social and political engineering of the EU, recognise the value of free markets and collaboration to create them.
'I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route. With Britain in the lead, the new EFTA could fundamentally re-negotiate its status vis-à-vis the EU, NAFTA and other trading blocs but operating as a loose association of nations operating as a free market free trade area but that's all.'
Indeed - and this is of course another reason why the pro-EU forces are trying so hard to rubbish this idea. A lot of the EU's current 'appeal' is that it is seen by the political classes in much of Europe, especially smaller countries, as the only game in town.
off-topic, just meandering through CiF. I think this line, from a btl comment on an article by Tristram Hunt, essentially illustrates how big a hole Lab is in right now:
"The fact that a chap called Tristram ever made it into the Labour Party, let alone rose through its ranks would tell you all you need to know about why the rank and file got fed up with 'New Labour'."
Does Posho Hunt face the prospect of deselection?
Stoke and Newcastle-U-Lyme face being cut from 4 to 3 seats so there is a chance he could be the one to go.
I made some comments yesterday about a post-EU Britain. Refining my thinking overnight, I'm wondering if, in his recent travels in the North, the Prime Minister is wondering what EFTA might look like if Britain became a member. Currently, EFTA has, I believe, four members but if Britain joined (or re-joined), EFTA would be transformed.
I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route. With Britain in the lead, the new EFTA could fundamentally re-negotiate its status vis-à-vis the EU, NAFTA and other trading blocs but operating as a loose association of nations operating as a free market free trade area but that's all.
Exactly what I'm up for.
Getting back control of our own farm and fish subsidies is reason enough to go down this route.
I made some comments yesterday about a post-EU Britain. Refining my thinking overnight, I'm wondering if, in his recent travels in the North, the Prime Minister is wondering what EFTA might look like if Britain became a member. Currently, EFTA has, I believe, four members but if Britain joined (or re-joined), EFTA would be transformed.
I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route. With Britain in the lead, the new EFTA could fundamentally re-negotiate its status vis-à-vis the EU, NAFTA and other trading blocs but operating as a loose association of nations operating as a free market free trade area but that's all.
A suggestion worthy of a great deal of consideration. I am still inclined towards EEA membership but your ideas are certainly full of merit.
Thank you for the kind word, Richard. I want LEAVE to have a coherent alternative to offer and I think this could be it. A new EFTA, led by Britain, offering the benefit of a free trade free market bloc without the concomitant obligations on freedom of movement of labour and social integration, would, I think, be hugely attractive to those who, while despairing of the social and political engineering of the EU, recognise the value of free markets and collaboration to create them.
Interesting ideas Mr Stodge - You echo my thoughts on an alternate EU position.
Interesting thoughts from Chris Mullin - I'm inclined to think that, given the situation, this is Labour's best hope.
Jeremy needs to be thinking about an electoral pact with the Lib Dems and the Greens. In a list of key marginal seats, there needs to be just one anti-Tory candidate. In one or two places, Totnes for example, and certainly one of the Brighton seats, it will be the Greens. In many places it will be the Labour candidate. And in quite a lot of places it needs to be the Liberal Democrat candidate.
Now the tribalists on all sides will start jumping up and down at the suggestion. But if they want to get real, given the political climate in which we live, this is the only hope of getting a non-Tory majority in the foreseeable future, and it needs to be thought about very seriously.
PS Can I add my name to those commending Richard Nabavi for his overview of Irish politics, and also Nick Palmer for his assessment of the state of the EU referendum. I'm a bit snowed at the moment so I am mostly picking up threads 2 or 3 at a time.
In effect, tactical anti-Conservative voting from 1997-2005 did what formal electoral pacts failed to do. In 2015, we saw, in my view. tactical pro-Conservative voting whereby, for a number of reasons, a number of people who were not naturally Conservative in political inclination came to vote Conservative.
I'm not a fan of electoral pacts per se (not that in my constituency, East Ham, it would have any effect) though there was talk of a Coalition "coupon" at times after 2010. Assuming all those who didn't vote Conservative would coalesce around a single candidate is naïve - some might actually vote Conservative in preference to Labour, LD, UKIP, Green or whatever.
Once you have such a pact, the next step is a formal Coalition - it forces the hand of those parties in the pact to work together after the election as well. I find it hard to see how the current Labour Party could marshal the disparate anti-Conservative forces.
Golly. Pro-Europe CBI poll was rigged, claims ‘no’ lobby " http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/article4602066.ece "The CBI is understood to have selected the sample for YouGov from its membership list. In total, 451 of the members selected responded." “These facts are capable of giving rise to the inference that the CBI was allowed to select which of its members were surveyed in order to further the CBI leadership’s longstanding pro-EU stance,” the complaint concludes.
Sounds like a whinge from an interested party. The CBI (unlike the FSB) is all about big business, so a survey of CBI members would tend to be weighted to them. A more reasonable criticism would be that a survey of big businesses should not be represented as a survey of all businesses.
On David Herdson's interesting comment on the Lords, I agree that appointment (as opposed to election) is not compatible with having the power to block or delay legislation. But I think it would be compatible with a purely advisory upper house, whose job would be to give a brisk first scan to all new legislation and make comments which the Commons could take account of - very like a Select Committee, but with experts rather than generalists.
If we had a Labour government abolishing Trident, for instance, I wouldn't mind an upper house raising both general worries (perhaps examples of cases where Trident was perceived to have made a difference) and practical concerns (disposal of the missiles etc.), and if that showed that we'd not thought something through, fair enough. But it would be wrong if they could block it or delay it for years without any electoral mandate.
Note that there is no reason why the Appointments Commission would only pick the great and the good. They should try to include some single parents, former prisoners, recent refugees, manual workers, people living on the state pension, students, small farmers, fishermen, etc. The idea would be that whatever the subject, there would be someone there who really knew about it from recent personal experience.
Agreed. It all depends on what we want the Lords to do.
Some feel that all branches of government should be elected on principle - including the head of state - and fair enough.
But what are we electing them for? I agree that if they are there to legislate, it's hard to argue against election. If they are there to advise and revise, then I'm struggling to see what an electoral mandate might add without taking away - or, to put it another way, without changing the constitutional balance we currently have.
We tend to jump straight to the answer regarding Lords reform without first asking that question.
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.
I'm not sure that a rebuttal that involves "revealing" facts listed on his Wikipedia site with overtones of a Bilderberg conspiracy theory is particularly effective, a few days later or on the spot.
It's a "Bilderberg conspiracy theory" to point out that someone who makes a pro-EU argument was previously in receipt of a hefty salary of the EU? I guess that's another one in the antifrank repetoir, after saying that those that disagree with you "howl at the moon".
It's straight out of la-la land to suggest that he owes any loyalty to anyone other than the US government. Have we reached the point where merely to have had distant past employment by an EU institution renders someone irredeemably tainted?
Err Yes! Since it is a criterion that you must continue to actively support the EU to qualify for your pension.
The suggestion that the US position on the UK's membership of the EU somehow depends on the CV of one individual in the administration is quite the funniest piece of Kipperish lunacy we've seen for months.
The suggestion that the US position on the UK's membership of the EU somehow depends on the CV of one individual in the administration is quite the funniest piece of Kipperish lunacy we've seen for months.
I'm afraid I expect that it will be bettered before the week is out.
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.
I'm not sure that a rebuttal that involves "revealing" facts listed on his Wikipedia site with overtones of a Bilderberg conspiracy theory is particularly effective, a few days later or on the spot.
It's a "Bilderberg conspiracy theory" to point out that someone who makes a pro-EU argument was previously in receipt of a hefty salary of the EU? I guess that's another one in the antifrank repetoir, after saying that those that disagree with you "howl at the moon".
It's straight out of la-la land to suggest that he owes any loyalty to anyone other than the US government. Have we reached the point where merely to have had distant past employment by an EU institution renders someone irredeemably tainted?
Are you saying that a former employee of the EC has no rules to follow to get their share of their pension? I had read that this was the case but do not have a link.
Once you have such a pact, the next step is a formal Coalition - it forces the hand of those parties in the pact to work together after the election as well. I find it hard to see how the current Labour Party could marshal the disparate anti-Conservative forces.
A coalition or indeed a merger.
But yes, Corbyn4PM (and all that is entailed in that) would be too big an obstacle for the Lib Dems, you'd have thought.
Im on the fence at the moment, i think in the round theres not much in it between remaining in and leaving. The advantages and disadvantages more than cancel each other out. One thing i dont like though, is being played. Farage just exposed someone trying to play me. Well done Nigel.
I agree, but fear that Project Fear will succeed with the masses.
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
Oh, to be quite clear: if Britain were to leave the EU, it would do a trade deal with the USA pdq. The idea that Mr Froman's view reflects malign secret control by Brussels lizard people, however, is absurd beyond belief. The US government has a national interest in seeing Britain stay in the EU that can be explained without any network of European sleeper agents.
The suggestion that the US position on the UK's membership of the EU somehow depends on the CV of one individual in the administration is quite the funniest piece of Kipperish lunacy we've seen for months.
I'm afraid I expect that it will be bettered before the week is out.
For that matter, trying to claim that CBI members are not broadly pro-EU is a close runner-up.
Once you have such a pact, the next step is a formal Coalition - it forces the hand of those parties in the pact to work together after the election as well. I find it hard to see how the current Labour Party could marshal the disparate anti-Conservative forces.
A coalition or indeed a merger.
But yes, Corbyn4PM (and all that is entailed in that) would be too big an obstacle for the Lib Dems, you'd have thought.
Labour tried the vote sharing route and nurtured the LDs to 60+ seats. That eventually led to the 2010 coalition so I cannot see Labour nurturing the Greens and the LDs. One socialist party/ring to rule them all....
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
Quite, why don't these people just say:
I'm undecided until I hear the official position of my beloved party/leader.
When it comes to politics otherwise rational and intelligent people are unable and unwilling to think for themselves.
The suggestion that the US position on the UK's membership of the EU somehow depends on the CV of one individual in the administration is quite the funniest piece of Kipperish lunacy we've seen for months.
I dont think the US cares very much about the UK, except in how it might impact them. Like DEFRA with farms, the US would rather deal with one big block, than deal with lots of little countries (as it sees them). But, I doubt its interest really goes beyond that. There are some i suppose who could feel threatened by the successful anglo saxon free market competition in financial services that London brings to the world, with a hope that this would be strangled in a more integrated Europe, but I doubt they are really thinking that far ahead.
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
I am a floating voter.
55% stay 30% leave 15% will not vote.
Is this using the same data as your EDM forecasts?
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
I am a floating voter.
55% stay 30% leave 15% will not vote.
Is this using the same data as your EDM forecasts?
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
Yes
I think a lot of people on here genuinely are interested in the nuances of arguments, and like to display their impeccable logic by saying they understand both sides, appearing to be open minded enough to be swayed by a persuasive argument made by one or other, despite the fact that in reality their minds have long been made up.
Intellectual showboating I'd say... People feel the need to act according to the reputation they think they have
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
I am a floating voter.
55% stay 30% leave 15% will not vote.
85% turnout?
I'd be surprised if its over 50%.
This is the big advantage for the LEAVE campaign, they are far more likely to vote
Interesting thoughts from Chris Mullin - I'm inclined to think that, given the situation, this is Labour's best hope.
Jeremy needs to be thinking about an electoral pact with the Lib Dems and the Greens. In a list of key marginal seats, there needs to be just one anti-Tory candidate. In one or two places, Totnes for example, and certainly one of the Brighton seats, it will be the Greens. In many places it will be the Labour candidate. And in quite a lot of places it needs to be the Liberal Democrat candidate.
Now the tribalists on all sides will start jumping up and down at the suggestion. But if they want to get real, given the political climate in which we live, this is the only hope of getting a non-Tory majority in the foreseeable future, and it needs to be thought about very seriously.
PS Can I add my name to those commending Richard Nabavi for his overview of Irish politics, and also Nick Palmer for his assessment of the state of the EU referendum. I'm a bit snowed at the moment so I am mostly picking up threads 2 or 3 at a time.
This only works where the Tory option is perceived to be worse than the alternative. With Corbyn as leader, the LDs and Greens would be mad to do any kind of formal deal with Labour.
Sounds like a whinge from an interested party. The CBI (unlike the FSB) is all about big business, so a survey of CBI members would tend to be weighted to them. A more reasonable criticism would be that a survey of big businesses should not be represented as a survey of all businesses.
On David Herdson's interesting comment on the Lords, I agree that appointment (as opposed to election) is not compatible with having the power to block or delay legislation. But I think it would be compatible with a purely advisory upper house, whose job would be to give a brisk first scan to all new legislation and make comments which the Commons could take account of - very like a Select Committee, but with experts rather than generalists.
If we had a Labour government abolishing Trident, for instance, I wouldn't mind an upper house raising both general worries (perhaps examples of cases where Trident was perceived to have made a difference) and practical concerns (disposal of the missiles etc.), and if that showed that we'd not thought something through, fair enough. But it would be wrong if they could block it or delay it for years without any electoral mandate.
Note that there is no reason why the Appointments Commission would only pick the great and the good. They should try to include some single parents, former prisoners, recent refugees, manual workers, people living on the state pension, students, small farmers, fishermen, etc. The idea would be that whatever the subject, there would be someone there who really knew about it from recent personal experience.
I wonder if that's trying to solve a slightly different issue.
The problem with a whole House being made up of experts is that it still has the right to vote as a whole on legislation, which runs counter to the democratic principle.
If we're looking at experts fine-tuning legislation, might a better option not be to enable the Bill's Committee stage to co-opt as non-voting members, experts who could advise on how well the planned legislation would act in practice?
I'd be wary about making them voting members, partly because there's no accountability, partly because chances are that the parties would try to nominate experts favourable to their cause rather than to good legislation, and partly because experts are not without their own prejudices and agendas. I'd much rather the Surveillance Bill (or whatever it's called) Committee had a former director of MI5, a former Chief Constable and a Human Rights lawyer as expert permanent members, able to question other witnesses the same as MPs but without any direct voting rights and only able to change the clauses by influencing MPs, than effectively contrive an artificial argument by pitting them against each other on every vote.
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.
I'm not sure that a rebuttal that involves "revealing" facts listed on his Wikipedia site with overtones of a Bilderberg conspiracy theory is particularly effective, a few days later or on the spot.
It's a "Bilderberg conspiracy theory" to point out that someone who makes a pro-EU argument was previously in receipt of a hefty salary of the EU? I guess that's another one in the antifrank repetoir, after saying that those that disagree with you "howl at the moon".
It's straight out of la-la land to suggest that he owes any loyalty to anyone other than the US government. Have we reached the point where merely to have had distant past employment by an EU institution renders someone irredeemably tainted?
Are you saying that a former employee of the EC has no rules to follow to get their share of their pension? I had read that this was the case but do not have a link.
With lots of caveats as this is a newspaper report and not an original document but I suspect this might be what you read on the subject.
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
I am a floating voter.
55% stay 30% leave 15% will not vote.
85% turnout?
I'd be surprised if its over 50%.
This is the big advantage for the LEAVE campaign, they are far more likely to vote
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
Yes
I think a lot of people on here genuinely are interested in the nuances of arguments, and like to display their impeccable logic by saying they understand both sides, appearing to be open minded enough to be swayed by a persuasive argument made by one or other, despite the fact that in reality their minds have long been made up.
Intellectual showboating I'd say
Its far more basic than that isam, tories are terrified of committing themselves to something that opposes Cameron.
This feels like a strange day; the second time I've seen a reference to 1984 online today ('Two Minutes Hate). Though if Mike Smithson didn't introduce threads which offered an alternative opinion to most PBers then this site would probably cease to be a genuine political discussion forum, as well as betting site and simply be a place where Tories can congregate to talk about the genius of Osborne and Crosby; how David Cameron should not be underestimated; how evil/useless the Labour party and the wider European Left is and so on. I agree with Johnathan. The downright bizarre thing on PB since the GE has not been that most on the Right have been in a party mood; but how resistant so many seem to any kind of questioning of government policy, or an expression of critical view of the government. I didn't really see his post either as saying the people 'don't know what's good for them' - his suggestion of mid-term elections, if anything appear to be suggesting the precise opposition of that. I personally think things would be helped if governments made clear their polices going forward - both Conservative and Labour parties; who told the electorate very little in regard to cuts, limiting people's ability to make informed decisions.
Interesting thoughts from Chris Mullin - I'm inclined to think that, given the situation, this is Labour's best hope.
Jeremy needs to be thinking about an electoral pact with the Lib Dems and the Greens. In a list of key marginal seats, there needs to be just one anti-Tory candidate. In one or two places, Totnes for example, and certainly one of the Brighton seats, it will be the Greens. In many places it will be the Labour candidate. And in quite a lot of places it needs to be the Liberal Democrat candidate.
Now the tribalists on all sides will start jumping up and down at the suggestion. But if they want to get real, given the political climate in which we live, this is the only hope of getting a non-Tory majority in the foreseeable future, and it needs to be thought about very seriously.
PS Can I add my name to those commending Richard Nabavi for his overview of Irish politics, and also Nick Palmer for his assessment of the state of the EU referendum. I'm a bit snowed at the moment so I am mostly picking up threads 2 or 3 at a time.
In effect, tactical anti-Conservative voting from 1997-2005 did what formal electoral pacts failed to do. In 2015, we saw, in my view. tactical pro-Conservative voting whereby, for a number of reasons, a number of people who were not naturally Conservative in political inclination came to vote Conservative.
I'm not a fan of electoral pacts per se (not that in my constituency, East Ham, it would have any effect) though there was talk of a Coalition "coupon" at times after 2010. Assuming all those who didn't vote Conservative would coalesce around a single candidate is naïve - some might actually vote Conservative in preference to Labour, LD, UKIP, Green or whatever.
Once you have such a pact, the next step is a formal Coalition - it forces the hand of those parties in the pact to work together after the election as well. I find it hard to see how the current Labour Party could marshal the disparate anti-Conservative forces.
The suggestion about the 'left pactees' supporting the Greens in Totnes rather summed up the nonsense of the article - the Tories had a majority of 5000 over all the rest this time! The idea that all the non-Tories in any one seat would simply shift to the 'pact' alternative is very insulting to voters.
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
I am a floating voter.
55% stay 30% leave 15% will not vote.
85% turnout?
I'd be surprised if its over 50%.
This is the big advantage for the LEAVE campaign, they are far more likely to vote
The suggestion that the US position on the UK's membership of the EU somehow depends on the CV of one individual in the administration is quite the funniest piece of Kipperish lunacy we've seen for months.
Of course it would be if anyone had said it. But since they haven't you are just using straw man arguments again.
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
I am a floating voter.
55% stay 30% leave 15% will not vote.
85% turnout?
I'd be surprised if its over 50%.
This is the big advantage for the LEAVE campaign, they are far more likely to vote
I dont think the US cares very much about the UK, except in how it might impact them. Like DEFRA with farms, the US would rather deal with one big block, than deal with lots of little countries (as it sees them).
It's partly that, and it's partly that it wants the EU to be influenced as much as possible by the UK, for free-market and geopolitical reasons.
In any case, successive US administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have long been keen on the UK remaining part of the EU. That is the simple fact, and it ain't gonna change any time soon. The Leave side would do better to recognise this simple fact, and try to work out arguments to deal with it, rather than latch on to yet another lunatic conspiracy theory, adding the Obama administration to the ever-lengthening list of organisations whch have been inflitrated by dishonest Europhiles.
I disagree. You have to look at what the purpose of the HoL is, and how that purpose can best be achieved. To address your concerns:
A Commission could decide on what areas are represented, and the basic rules. This could reconvene (say) every ten years to decide on whether the current make-up is still valid. And it would be hard to form blocks, as there will be few people in each block, compared to the party-political HOL system we have where there are hundreds of men and women mindlessly voting in each block.
Let's say it's decided that civil engineering should have two representatives. It could be left up to the civil engineering community who should represent them: they might decide one is the previous year's president of the ICE (elected by members each year); it is up to them how they choose the other. Periods of service could also be left up to them, up to a maximum. Members of the Lords should be able to resign, and another chosen to replace them.
This will mean that we will have experts examining the laws that come from the Commons, not a bunch of party hacks who leave their brains at the door when it comes to voting.
I'm not saying that political parties are overrepresented: I'm saying that having too many political-party representatives in the HoL prevents it from doing its job properly. As evidence, just look at the voting record in the last week: the parties voted more or less in big blocks. The jewels in the crown of the HoL, particularly in debates, are the crossbenchers, who actually seem to have minds of their own.
If anything, there is a danger that such a HoL might show up the poor levels of debate and lawmaking in the HoC. And if that means we get a better, more professional HoC as well, then so be it.
In your mind, how will an elected HoL allow it to perform its role better?
I'm with you Josias. The whole premise of David's objections seem to be that it is impossible for someone who is an expert in a given field to look impartially at an issue and come to a position based on the best interests of the country. That is a very cynical view of people.
If that were the case, we might as well do away with the Commons too.
......Though if Mike Smithson didn't introduce threads which offered an alternative opinion to most PBers then this site would probably cease to be a genuine political discussion forum, as well as betting site and simply be a place where Tories can congregate to talk about the genius of Osborne and Crosby; how David Cameron should not be underestimated; how evil/useless the Labour party and the wider European Left is and so on. zzzzzzzzzzz
Who apart from TSE on here believes that Osborne is a genius?
The suggestion about the 'left pactees' supporting the Greens in Totnes rather summed up the nonsense of the article - the Tories had a majority of 5000 over all the rest this time! The idea that all the non-Tories in any one seat would simply shift to the 'pact' alternative is very insulting to voters.
Well, gaining Totnes is definitely on the optimistic side, in a future where the Tories fall back a bit. More important might be defending the likes of Halifax, Hove and Tooting where a couple of thousand extra votes might prove crucial.
Leave's biggest danger is that it paints itself as a right of the Conservative party (Osborne/Cameron) campaign.
Whilst it is undoubtdly a decent sized faction, they'd do well to give prominence to the centre/centre-left (Kate Hoey) for instance and also engage some of the anti-EU more sensible unions.
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.
I'm not sure that a rebuttal that involves "revealing" facts listed on his Wikipedia site with overtones of a Bilderberg conspiracy theory is particularly effective, a few days later or on the spot.
It's a "Bilderberg conspiracy theory" to point out that someone who makes a pro-EU argument was previously in receipt of a hefty salary of the EU? I guess that's another one in the antifrank repetoir, after saying that those that disagree with you "howl at the moon".
It's straight out of la-la land to suggest that he owes any loyalty to anyone other than the US government. Have we reached the point where merely to have had distant past employment by an EU institution renders someone irredeemably tainted?
Are you saying that a former employee of the EC has no rules to follow to get their share of their pension? I had read that this was the case but do not have a link.
With lots of caveats as this is a newspaper report and not an original document but I suspect this might be what you read on the subject.
Thanks Mr Tyndall. " One of these obligations as a staff member of the Commission is to maintain a "duty of loyalty to the Communities". The rules also note that "an official has the right to freedom of expression, with due respect to the principles of loyalty and impartiality". If they fail to demonstrate loyalty to the EU, Lord Mandelson can be "deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits", the rules say. "
Which should be quoted every time a current or ex staff member speaks out in favour of the EC.
......Though if Mike Smithson didn't introduce threads which offered an alternative opinion to most PBers then this site would probably cease to be a genuine political discussion forum, as well as betting site and simply be a place where Tories can congregate to talk about the genius of Osborne and Crosby; how David Cameron should not be underestimated; how evil/useless the Labour party and the wider European Left is and so on. zzzzzzzzzzz
Who apart from TSE on here believes that Osborne is a genius?
Several Tories on here have remarked on Osborne's 'genius' - I distinctly remember (it was this week) that one PB Tory who wasn't TSE believed that post tax-credits saga Osborne's control over the media/genius would increase even more.
If that were the case, we might as well do away with the Commons too.
No because there will be genuine differences of opinion and our system of democracy is designed to ensure that both or all sides of an argument get a proper hearing. At least that is the principle although the party system has badly corrupted it.
The job of the Upper House is to ensure that the law as it is passed by the Lower House is fit for purpose, coherent, does not result in unforeseen consequences and abides by our constitutional arrangements. As such it should not be a place for politics but for reasoned analysis and amendment to make proposed laws better whilst abiding by their basic intent and principles.
The difference in the requirements of the two houses should - and I believe would - be sufficient to ensure a difference in both tone and nature of the debate and decisions made.
......Though if Mike Smithson didn't introduce threads which offered an alternative opinion to most PBers then this site would probably cease to be a genuine political discussion forum, as well as betting site and simply be a place where Tories can congregate to talk about the genius of Osborne and Crosby; how David Cameron should not be underestimated; how evil/useless the Labour party and the wider European Left is and so on. zzzzzzzzzzz
Who apart from TSE on here believes that Osborne is a genius?
Several Tories on here have remarked on Osborne's 'genius' - I distinctly remember (it was this week) that one PB Tory who wasn't TSE believed that post tax-credits saga Osborne's control over the media/genius would increase even more.
'[the US] wants the EU to be influenced as much as possible by the UK, for free-market and geopolitical reasons'
Yes we all know that thanks, it's hardly news.
But the fact that they want us to represent their interests rather than our own (and get a bit peeved at the idea that we might not want to do that) is a pretty feeble argument for us staying in.
......Though if Mike Smithson didn't introduce threads which offered an alternative opinion to most PBers then this site would probably cease to be a genuine political discussion forum, as well as betting site and simply be a place where Tories can congregate to talk about the genius of Osborne and Crosby; how David Cameron should not be underestimated; how evil/useless the Labour party and the wider European Left is and so on. zzzzzzzzzzz
Who apart from TSE on here believes that Osborne is a genius?
Several Tories on here have remarked on Osborne's 'genius' - I distinctly remember (it was this week) that one PB Tory who wasn't TSE believed that post tax-credits saga Osborne's control over the media/genius would increase even more.
Well I will look out for the misguided.
I can't believe there are some who actually want him to be party-leader after Cameron. I think the best option for them would be May.
Interesting thoughts from Chris Mullin - I'm inclined to think that, given the situation, this is Labour's best hope.
Jeremy needs to be thinking about an electoral pact with the Lib Dems and the Greens. In a list of key marginal seats, there needs to be just one anti-Tory candidate. In one or two places, Totnes for example, and certainly one of the Brighton seats, it will be the Greens. In many places it will be the Labour candidate. And in quite a lot of places it needs to be the Liberal Democrat candidate.
Now the tribalists on all sides will start jumping up and down at the suggestion. But if they want to get real, given the political climate in which we live, this is the only hope of getting a non-Tory majority in the foreseeable future, and it needs to be thought about very seriously.
PS Can I add my name to those commending Richard Nabavi for his overview of Irish politics, and also Nick Palmer for his assessment of the state of the EU referendum. I'm a bit snowed at the moment so I am mostly picking up threads 2 or 3 at a time.
He still seems to believe the old canard that most LD and Green voters would automatically prefer Labour to the Tories.
'[the US] wants the EU to be influenced as much as possible by the UK, for free-market and geopolitical reasons'
Yes we all know that thanks, it's hardly news.
But the fact that they want us to represent their interests rather than our own (and get a bit peeved at the idea that we might not want to do that) is a pretty feeble argument for us staying in.
Whether it is feeble or not, it's a hell of a lot more convincing than going on about the pension provisions of the US Trade Representative. Does the Leave side not realise how utterly bonkers such obsessions make them appear?
'Undecideds' in clamour to criticise any criticism of the EU shock
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
Yes
I think a lot of people on here genuinely are interested in the nuances of arguments, and like to display their impeccable logic by saying they understand both sides, appearing to be open minded enough to be swayed by a persuasive argument made by one or other, despite the fact that in reality their minds have long been made up.
Intellectual showboating I'd say... People feel the need to act according to the reputation they think they have
On the other hand, there are others, such as myself when it comes to the EU, who are genuinely undecided (although I'm leaning towards 'Leave'). You shouldn't dismiss those who are undecided, but who are not swayed by some of the arguments.
The EU debate on here is getting rather tiresome, with the same topics being gone over again and again, and the same arguments between the same people.
If that were the case, we might as well do away with the Commons too.
No because there will be genuine differences of opinion and our system of democracy is designed to ensure that both or all sides of an argument get a proper hearing. At least that is the principle although the party system has badly corrupted it.
The job of the Upper House is to ensure that the law as it is passed by the Lower House is fit for purpose, coherent, does not result in unforeseen consequences and abides by our constitutional arrangements. As such it should not be a place for politics but for reasoned analysis and amendment to make proposed laws better whilst abiding by their basic intent and principles.
....
Is it though? The Lords has never been given that remit as such and has only taken it upon itself by default, in view of its lack of a better claim. In most countries - and in the UK until the Lords started losing power - the two Houses play a roughly co-equal role in passing legislation. Of itself, neither system is necessarily superior but I dislike over-mighty governments and for that reason feel a more powerful second chamber would a good thing. However, nor is deadlock conducive to good government. It's why I favour an upper house that broadly reflects opinion (i.e. elected by PR in large constituencies) and a lower house broadly reflecting geography (i.e. elected by FPTP in small, equal ones). The lower one should ultimately prevail but only after prolonged rethinking - a return to the 1911 rules, for example.
......Though if Mike Smithson didn't introduce threads which offered an alternative opinion to most PBers then this site would probably cease to be a genuine political discussion forum, as well as betting site and simply be a place where Tories can congregate to talk about the genius of Osborne and Crosby; how David Cameron should not be underestimated; how evil/useless the Labour party and the wider European Left is and so on. zzzzzzzzzzz
Who apart from TSE on here believes that Osborne is a genius?
Several Tories on here have remarked on Osborne's 'genius' - I distinctly remember (it was this week) that one PB Tory who wasn't TSE believed that post tax-credits saga Osborne's control over the media/genius would increase even more.
Well I will look out for the misguided.
I can't believe there are some who actually want him to be party-leader after Cameron. I think the best option for them would be May.
If George Osborne and Theresa May could reach an accommodation, Theresa May would be by some way the Conservatives' best choice in my view. She has a comforting mumsy feel and at a stroke it would put Labour in all sorts of trouble given the apparent women problems that Jeremy Corbyn has.
To make that work, Theresa May would need to accept that George Osborne could keep his current role and continue to roam quite freely. I don't think either of them trusts the other enough though.
If they can't work together then the Conservatives would do best to find someone else that George Osborne does trust who has front-of-House skills and make him or her leader.
......Though if Mike Smithson didn't introduce threads which offered an alternative opinion to most PBers then this site would probably cease to be a genuine political discussion forum, as well as betting site and simply be a place where Tories can congregate to talk about the genius of Osborne and Crosby; how David Cameron should not be underestimated; how evil/useless the Labour party and the wider European Left is and so on. zzzzzzzzzzz
Who apart from TSE on here believes that Osborne is a genius?
Several Tories on here have remarked on Osborne's 'genius' - I distinctly remember (it was this week) that one PB Tory who wasn't TSE believed that post tax-credits saga Osborne's control over the media/genius would increase even more.
There are many former contributors on here who've said in the past that Osborne was finished after 2012. I wonder how they feel now.
'[the US] wants the EU to be influenced as much as possible by the UK, for free-market and geopolitical reasons'
Yes we all know that thanks, it's hardly news.
But the fact that they want us to represent their interests rather than our own (and get a bit peeved at the idea that we might not want to do that) is a pretty feeble argument for us staying in.
Whether it is feeble or not, it's a hell of a lot more convincing than going on about the pension provisions of the US Trade Representative. Does the Leave side not realise how utterly bonkers such obsessions make them appear?
More straw man attacks. And when it comes to utterly bonkers I am afraid the whole principle of EU membership takes the biscuit for that one.
'[the US] wants the EU to be influenced as much as possible by the UK, for free-market and geopolitical reasons'
Yes we all know that thanks, it's hardly news.
But the fact that they want us to represent their interests rather than our own (and get a bit peeved at the idea that we might not want to do that) is a pretty feeble argument for us staying in.
Whether it is feeble or not, it's a hell of a lot more convincing than going on about the pension provisions of the US Trade Representative. Does the Leave side not realise how utterly bonkers such obsessions make them appear?
When a high ranking U.S. official makes a statement warning against Britain leaving the EU that makes the front pages and news bulletins, I think it's fair enough to point out that he is a former EU employee
@AndyJS It'd be true of the Green vote, but if they didn't stand then I think the split to stay at home/other left wing fringe parties could and would be significant. I don't think anyone could make any assumptions about how the remaining rump LD vote would split.
......Though if Mike Smithson didn't introduce threads which offered an alternative opinion to most PBers then this site would probably cease to be a genuine political discussion forum, as well as betting site and simply be a place where Tories can congregate to talk about the genius of Osborne and Crosby; how David Cameron should not be underestimated; how evil/useless the Labour party and the wider European Left is and so on. zzzzzzzzzzz
Who apart from TSE on here believes that Osborne is a genius?
Several Tories on here have remarked on Osborne's 'genius' - I distinctly remember (it was this week) that one PB Tory who wasn't TSE believed that post tax-credits saga Osborne's control over the media/genius would increase even more.
Well I will look out for the misguided.
I can't believe there are some who actually want him to be party-leader after Cameron. I think the best option for them would be May.
In the same way of course that many Tories were were cheering for Corbyn
If that were the case, we might as well do away with the Commons too.
No because there will be genuine differences of opinion and our system of democracy is designed to ensure that both or all sides of an argument get a proper hearing. At least that is the principle although the party system has badly corrupted it.
The job of the Upper House is to ensure that the law as it is passed by the Lower House is fit for purpose, coherent, does not result in unforeseen consequences and abides by our constitutional arrangements. As such it should not be a place for politics but for reasoned analysis and amendment to make proposed laws better whilst abiding by their basic intent and principles.
....
Is it though? The Lords has never been given that remit as such and has only taken it upon itself by default, in view of its lack of a better claim. In most countries - and in the UK until the Lords started losing power - the two Houses play a roughly co-equal role in passing legislation. Of itself, neither system is necessarily superior but I dislike over-mighty governments and for that reason feel a more powerful second chamber would a good thing. However, nor is deadlock conducive to good government. It's why I favour an upper house that broadly reflects opinion (i.e. elected by PR in large constituencies) and a lower house broadly reflecting geography (i.e. elected by FPTP in small, equal ones). The lower one should ultimately prevail but only after prolonged rethinking - a return to the 1911 rules, for example.
We are talking about how the HoL should be reformed. As such the basic starting point of what is the HoL for seems the best way to go about things. And it is always referred to as an amending chamber - which is a more succinct summary of exactly what I said.
An elected HoL introduces - rather retains - a completely unnecessary political element. The use of PR makes that even worse by giving more unjustified power to parties.
A simple change that would be very valuable would be to make all HoL votes free votes.
'it's a hell of a lot more convincing than going on about the pension provisions of the US Trade Representative. Does the Leave side not realise how utterly bonkers such obsessions make them appear?'
Sorry Richard, you're not convincing anyone, either about your true views on this topic or with your substantive arguments on the related issues.
Why is it so hard to admit you are an EU supporter? Are you worried that might sound 'bonkers'?
I suppose I can see the problem if it means you get associated with some of the fanatical characters you might come across in the European Parliament or the Commission...
When a high ranking U.S. official makes a statement warning against Britain leaving the EU that makes the front pages and news bulletins, I think it's fair enough to point out that he is a former EU employee
Fair enough? Of course it's fair enough.
It's also hugely counter-productive. Sure, it will impress those (well represented on here) who think anyone who doesn't share their view that the EU is some sort of evil empire or who thinks that on balance staying In might be the least bad of the available options must be dishones and (even worse!) a 'Europhile'. For anyone else, it just looks completely bonkers to mention the guy's CV, since no-one, not a single sentient being, thinks that his CV is in the slightest bit relevant to the US position.
'[the US] wants the EU to be influenced as much as possible by the UK, for free-market and geopolitical reasons'
Yes we all know that thanks, it's hardly news.
But the fact that they want us to represent their interests rather than our own (and get a bit peeved at the idea that we might not want to do that) is a pretty feeble argument for us staying in.
Whether it is feeble or not, it's a hell of a lot more convincing than going on about the pension provisions of the US Trade Representative. Does the Leave side not realise how utterly bonkers such obsessions make them appear?
The idea that a US government spokesman would make this comment without it being approved by the US government is ridiculous - especially as it has not been retracted or in any way disowned since it was made.
More to the point is that by the time the EU referendum takes place, the US will have a different government which may have a very different view. What the Obama administration thinks is neither here nor there.
Why would it be a House of Vested Interests, particularly compared to the hideous vested interests of a limited number of political parties, which is your preferred solution?
The current system - and your proposed ones - over-represents political parties, whilst simultaneously stopping it from doing its job properly.
Because any Chamber comprised of 'experts' must inevitably come from functional constituencies and, for example, a businessman appointed will be seen by his business colleagues as having a role not only as a voice of business but specifically to protect the interests of business. Likewise trade unionists, likewise university professors, or archbishops, or grand dames of the stage, or whoever.
And of course none of these can have been elected, because as soon as you have elections you inevitably have partisan politics entering the fray. In fact, even when you don't, you'll get it by proxy and that is another reason why a House of Experts is a bad idea: it won't do away with party politics but it will do away with the public's involvement with it: the worst of all worlds.
And that's where I disagree most profoundly with you. Political parties are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. It's a misreading of their nature and of their role to say that they're overrepresented. You might as well say that MPs are overrepresented. Parties are a transmission mechanism through which the public can make their views known. Imperfect, to be sure, but the best available. Any party which becomes too distant from its natural support, or which simply loses its way will firstly find its support fall and if that continues, will find itself replaced by rivals. By contrast, how do you get rid of an 'expert'? Still more difficult, how do you get rid of a sector which might once have had a purpose but has become anachronistic? It's daft enough that bishops are still there, based on their relevance in the Middle Ages but at least the Commons managed to do away with university seats and the like. It would be a wholly retrograde step to start reintroducing them.
Being an expert is not proof that a person has commonsense or moral groundedness. Quite the opposite, in fact, in all too many cases.
There are ways of calling on expertise without replacing one chamber lacking democratic legitimacy with another also lacking in such legitimacy.
Electoral pacts? Doesn't sound very democratic, politicians fiddling the system to gain power. I await comments from those who have been so vocal down thread about the Tories 'stealing' the election in 2015.
Quite right, Mr Watford. Time to put an end to politicians "fiddling the system", as the Tories did earlier this year. How can you have a government claiming a mandate when it was backed by under 25% of the registered electors?
What we need is STV. When do we need it? Now!
Mr Mullins would do better to write about STV rather than pacts, designed to hel the Labour Party. So would Mr Eagles, of course. STV woud give individual electors some say in the outcome, rather than party manipulators.
If George Osborne and Theresa May could reach an accommodation, Theresa May would be by some way the Conservatives' best choice in my view. She has a comforting mumsy feel and at a stroke it would put Labour in all sorts of trouble given the apparent women problems that Jeremy Corbyn has.
To make that work, Theresa May would need to accept that George Osborne could keep his current role and continue to roam quite freely. I don't think either of them trusts the other enough though.
If they can't work together then the Conservatives would do best to find someone else that George Osborne does trust who has front-of-House skills and make him or her leader.
I think that would be an ideal scenario for the Conservatives; although Osborne has shown to be on occasion fallible (the ominishambles in 2012; and now the tax-credits saga) so his judgement isn't always right. I think Theresa May by far does 'human' best out of all the front-bench Conservatives. She come across as down to earth, and has done a decent job in the Home Office. Many Conservatives on PB have spoken about the Tories making ground on the working classes. If they really want to do that, then May would be an ideal candidate. While Osborne clearly has a talent for the behind-the-scenes politics, he is also someone who feels impossible to identify with. A May led Conservative party is actually one I'd even consider voting for.
On Corbyn, I'm aware there was a bit of story regarding the lack of women in his shadow cabinet, but are his women troubles extending to not polling well with women or something? Labour are really going backwards, if that is the case. They've had an advantage with under 45 women for sometime now, and they would be silly to lose yet another demographic.
I agree that May and Osborne wouldn't really trust one another. I think Osborne, for a start would much prefer one of his acolytes to take the Conservative party leadership if he couldn't - so the likes of Javid, Hancock and even Perry would be pushed by him as opposed to May. I also think that May simply wouldn't be happy with merely being the face of the Osborne project in the way David Cameron, to all intents and purposes appears to be. I also think for any potential Tory party leader having a Conservative party dominated by Osborne acolytes does put them in a somewhat vulnerable position, especially if they don't have a comparable 'base' of supporters.
Why is it so hard to admit you are an EU supporter? Are you worried that might sound 'bonkers'?
I'm not an EU supporter. Neither am I an EU opponent. I know this is hard for the nuttier elements to understand, but I don't regard this as some kind of tribal contest, where you have to decide whether you support Aston Villa or Tottenham.
......Though if Mike Smithson didn't introduce threads which offered an alternative opinion to most PBers then this site would probably cease to be a genuine political discussion forum, as well as betting site and simply be a place where Tories can congregate to talk about the genius of Osborne and Crosby; how David Cameron should not be underestimated; how evil/useless the Labour party and the wider European Left is and so on. zzzzzzzzzzz
Who apart from TSE on here believes that Osborne is a genius?
Several Tories on here have remarked on Osborne's 'genius' - I distinctly remember (it was this week) that one PB Tory who wasn't TSE believed that post tax-credits saga Osborne's control over the media/genius would increase even more.
There are many former contributors on here who've said in the past that Osborne was finished after 2012. I wonder how they feel now.
Probably a bit embarrassed. Still, all political careers end in failure so it should be interesting to see what the gods come up with regarding Osborne
If that were the case, we might as well do away with the Commons too.
No because there will be genuine differences of opinion and our system of democracy is designed to ensure that both or all sides of an argument get a proper hearing. At least that is the principle although the party system has badly corrupted it.
The job of the Upper House is to ensure that the law as it is passed by the Lower House is fit for purpose, coherent, does not result in unforeseen consequences and abides by our constitutional arrangements. As such it should not be a place for politics but for reasoned analysis and amendment to make proposed laws better whilst abiding by their basic intent and principles.
....
Is it though? The Lords has never been given that remit as such and has only taken it upon itself by default, in view of its lack of a better claim. In most countries - and in the UK until the Lords started losing power - the two Houses play a roughly co-equal role in passing legislation. Of itself, neither system is necessarily superior but I dislike over-mighty governments and for that reason feel a more powerful second chamber would a good thing. However, nor is deadlock conducive to good government. It's why I favour an upper house that broadly reflects opinion (i.e. elected by PR in large constituencies) and a lower house broadly reflecting geography (i.e. elected by FPTP in small, equal ones). The lower one should ultimately prevail but only after prolonged rethinking - a return to the 1911 rules, for example.
We are talking about how the HoL should be reformed. As such the basic starting point of what is the HoL for seems the best way to go about things. And it is always referred to as an amending chamber - which is a more succinct summary of exactly what I said.
An elected HoL introduces - rather retains - a completely unnecessary political element. The use of PR makes that even worse by giving more unjustified power to parties.
A simple change that would be very valuable would be to make all HoL votes free votes.
And how exactly would you either enable or enforce that?
On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.
Governments make mistakes.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.
Ah.
The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that.
That sounds very SNP, Chas. "The people" is not 36.9% of those who cast a vote.
No, but it reflects 650 individual contests in constituencies whose out of date boundaries were broadly agreed to favour labour to an unfair degree.
Clearly they didn't though, did they? We have the voting system that we have, but it is self evident that a party elected by 36.9% of those who voted is not close to representing "The People". The SNP makes similar claims about speaking for Scotland, when clearly it does not.
Even though it has over 50% , methinks you are a bit confused.
Why would it be a House of Vested Interests, particularly compared to the hideous vested interests of a limited number of political parties, which is your preferred solution?
The current system - and your proposed ones - over-represents political parties, whilst simultaneously stopping it from doing its job properly.
Because any Chamber comprised of 'experts' must inevitably come from functional constituencies and, for example, a businessman appointed will be seen by his business colleagues as having a role not only as a voice of business but specifically to protect the interests of business. Likewise trade unionists, likewise university professors, or archbishops, or grand dames of the stage, or whoever.
And of course none of these can have been elected, because as soon as you have elections you inevitably have partisan politics entering the fray. In fact, even when you don't, you'll get it by proxy and that is another reason why a House of Experts is a bad idea: it won't do away with party politics but it will do away with the public's involvement with it: the worst of all worlds.
And that's where I disagree most profoundly with you. Political parties are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. It's a misreading of their nature and of their role to say that they're overrepresented. You might as well say that MPs are overrepresented. Parties are a transmission mechanism through which the public can make their views known. Imperfect, to be sure, but the best available. Any party which becomes too distant from its natural support, or which simply loses its way will firstly find its support fall and if that continues, will find itself replaced by rivals. By contrast, how do you get rid of an 'expert'? Still more difficult, how do you get rid of a sector which might once have had a purpose but has become anachronistic? It's daft enough that bishops are still there, based on their relevance in the Middle Ages but at least the Commons managed to do away with university seats and the like. It would be a wholly retrograde step to start reintroducing them.
Being an expert is not proof that a person has commonsense or moral groundedness. Quite the opposite, in fact, in all too many cases.
There are ways of calling on expertise without replacing one chamber lacking democratic legitimacy with another also lacking in such legitimacy.
On the other hand:
Being elected is not proof that a person has commonsense or moral groundedness. Quite the opposite, in fact, in all too many cases.
There are ways of fixing the HoL without replacing one chamber lacking expertise with another also lacking in such expertise.
If that were the case, we might as well do away with the Commons too.
No because there will be genuine differences of opinion and our system of democracy is designed to ensure that both or all sides of an argument get a proper hearing. At least that is the principle although the party system has badly corrupted it.
The job of the Upper House is to ensure that the law as it is passed by the Lower House is fit for purpose, coherent, does not result in unforeseen consequences and abides by our constitutional arrangements. As such it should not be a place for politics but for reasoned analysis and amendment to make proposed laws better whilst abiding by their basic intent and principles.
....
Is it though? The Lords has never been given that remit as such and has only taken it upon itself by default, in view of its lack of a better claim. In most countries - and in the UK until the Lords started losing power - the two Houses play a roughly co-equal role in passing legislation. Of itself, neither system is necessarily superior but I dislike over-mighty governments and for that reason feel a more powerful second chamber would a good thing. However, nor is deadlock conducive to good government. It's why I favour an upper house that broadly reflects opinion (i.e. elected by PR in large constituencies) and a lower house broadly reflecting geography (i.e. elected by FPTP in small, equal ones). The lower one should ultimately prevail but only after prolonged rethinking - a return to the 1911 rules, for example.
We are talking about how the HoL should be reformed. As such the basic starting point of what is the HoL for seems the best way to go about things. And it is always referred to as an amending chamber - which is a more succinct summary of exactly what I said.
An elected HoL introduces - rather retains - a completely unnecessary political element. The use of PR makes that even worse by giving more unjustified power to parties.
A simple change that would be very valuable would be to make all HoL votes free votes.
And how exactly would you either enable or enforce that?
Ban whipping. Make it a criminal offence akin to bribery or blackmail - which is what it is in a more refined form.
If that were the case, we might as well do away with the Commons too.
No because there will be genuine differences of opinion and our system of democracy is designed to ensure that both or all sides of an argument get a proper hearing. At least that is the principle although the party system has badly corrupted it.
The job of the Upper House is to ensure that the law as it is passed by the Lower House is fit for purpose, coherent, does not result in unforeseen consequences and abides by our constitutional arrangements. As such it should not be a place for politics but for reasoned analysis and amendment to make proposed laws better whilst abiding by their basic intent and principles.
....
Is it though? The Lords has never been given that remit as such and has only taken it upon itself by default, in view of its lack of a better claim. In most countries - and in the UK until the Lords started losing power - the two Houses play a roughly co-equal role in passing legislation. Of itself, neither system is necessarily superior but I dislike over-mighty governments and for that reason feel a more powerful second chamber would a good thing. However, nor is deadlock conducive to good government. It's why I favour an upper house that broadly reflects opinion (i.e. elected by PR in large constituencies) and a lower house broadly reflecting geography (i.e. elected by FPTP in small, equal ones). The lower one should ultimately prevail but only after prolonged rethinking - a return to the 1911 rules, for example.
It may be cynical of me to say this, but the bolded part of your statement is why I think this would never happen. The Lower House enjoys the situation where it has primacy; allowing democratic legitimacy to the Upper House would reduce its right to have this. Far better to have the Upper House in the current situation, so the Lower House can claim democratic legitimacy to force things through over their objections.
Comments
Once again you demonstrate your profound ignorance of the subject.
Jeremy needs to be thinking about an electoral pact with the Lib Dems and the Greens. In a list of key marginal seats, there needs to be just one anti-Tory candidate. In one or two places, Totnes for example, and certainly one of the Brighton seats, it will be the Greens. In many places it will be the Labour candidate. And in quite a lot of places it needs to be the Liberal Democrat candidate.
Now the tribalists on all sides will start jumping up and down at the suggestion. But if they want to get real, given the political climate in which we live, this is the only hope of getting a non-Tory majority in the foreseeable future, and it needs to be thought about very seriously.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/11/chris-mullin-i-think-there-are-one-or-two-people-who-are-riding-fall
PS Can I add my name to those commending Richard Nabavi for his overview of Irish politics, and also Nick Palmer for his assessment of the state of the EU referendum. I'm a bit snowed at the moment so I am mostly picking up threads 2 or 3 at a time.
A Commission could decide on what areas are represented, and the basic rules. This could reconvene (say) every ten years to decide on whether the current make-up is still valid. And it would be hard to form blocks, as there will be few people in each block, compared to the party-political HOL system we have where there are hundreds of men and women mindlessly voting in each block.
Let's say it's decided that civil engineering should have two representatives. It could be left up to the civil engineering community who should represent them: they might decide one is the previous year's president of the ICE (elected by members each year); it is up to them how they choose the other. Periods of service could also be left up to them, up to a maximum. Members of the Lords should be able to resign, and another chosen to replace them.
This will mean that we will have experts examining the laws that come from the Commons, not a bunch of party hacks who leave their brains at the door when it comes to voting.
I'm not saying that political parties are overrepresented: I'm saying that having too many political-party representatives in the HoL prevents it from doing its job properly. As evidence, just look at the voting record in the last week: the parties voted more or less in big blocks. The jewels in the crown of the HoL, particularly in debates, are the crossbenchers, who actually seem to have minds of their own.
If anything, there is a danger that such a HoL might show up the poor levels of debate and lawmaking in the HoC. And if that means we get a better, more professional HoC as well, then so be it.
In your mind, how will an elected HoL allow it to perform its role better?
I remarked earlier that Nigel was very good on Marr yesterday, it would have been even better if he'd known this in advance.
I await comments from those who have been so vocal down thread about the Tories 'stealing' the election in 2015.
Indeed - and this is of course another reason why the pro-EU forces are trying so hard to rubbish this idea. A lot of the EU's current 'appeal' is that it is seen by the political classes in much of Europe, especially smaller countries, as the only game in town.
I'm not a fan of electoral pacts per se (not that in my constituency, East Ham, it would have any effect) though there was talk of a Coalition "coupon" at times after 2010. Assuming all those who didn't vote Conservative would coalesce around a single candidate is naïve - some might actually vote Conservative in preference to Labour, LD, UKIP, Green or whatever.
Once you have such a pact, the next step is a formal Coalition - it forces the hand of those parties in the pact to work together after the election as well. I find it hard to see how the current Labour Party could marshal the disparate anti-Conservative forces.
On David Herdson's interesting comment on the Lords, I agree that appointment (as opposed to election) is not compatible with having the power to block or delay legislation. But I think it would be compatible with a purely advisory upper house, whose job would be to give a brisk first scan to all new legislation and make comments which the Commons could take account of - very like a Select Committee, but with experts rather than generalists.
If we had a Labour government abolishing Trident, for instance, I wouldn't mind an upper house raising both general worries (perhaps examples of cases where Trident was perceived to have made a difference) and practical concerns (disposal of the missiles etc.), and if that showed that we'd not thought something through, fair enough. But it would be wrong if they could block it or delay it for years without any electoral mandate.
Note that there is no reason why the Appointments Commission would only pick the great and the good. They should try to include some single parents, former prisoners, recent refugees, manual workers, people living on the state pension, students, small farmers, fishermen, etc. The idea would be that whatever the subject, there would be someone there who really knew about it from recent personal experience.
Agreed. It all depends on what we want the Lords to do.
Some feel that all branches of government should be elected on principle - including the head of state - and fair enough.
But what are we electing them for? I agree that if they are there to legislate, it's hard to argue against election. If they are there to advise and revise, then I'm struggling to see what an electoral mandate might add without taking away - or, to put it another way, without changing the constitutional balance we currently have.
We tend to jump straight to the answer regarding Lords reform without first asking that question.
But yes, Corbyn4PM (and all that is entailed in that) would be too big an obstacle for the Lib Dems, you'd have thought.
From time to time there used to be trolls who came on this site claiming to be 'floating voters' before unleashing some obvious partisan spin. It seems we are getting a new version of that now.
But ever was it so - Europhiles have never been keen on arguing their case honestly. I might have a scintilla of respect for them if they did.
55% stay 30% leave 15% will not vote.
I'm undecided until I hear the official position of my beloved party/leader.
When it comes to politics otherwise rational and intelligent people are unable and unwilling to think for themselves.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/82cc6m777i/Eurotrack_October_Trackers_website.pdf
https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
I think a lot of people on here genuinely are interested in the nuances of arguments, and like to display their impeccable logic by saying they understand both sides, appearing to be open minded enough to be swayed by a persuasive argument made by one or other, despite the fact that in reality their minds have long been made up.
Intellectual showboating I'd say... People feel the need to act according to the reputation they think they have
I'd be surprised if its over 50%.
This is the big advantage for the LEAVE campaign, they are far more likely to vote
The problem with a whole House being made up of experts is that it still has the right to vote as a whole on legislation, which runs counter to the democratic principle.
If we're looking at experts fine-tuning legislation, might a better option not be to enable the Bill's Committee stage to co-opt as non-voting members, experts who could advise on how well the planned legislation would act in practice?
I'd be wary about making them voting members, partly because there's no accountability, partly because chances are that the parties would try to nominate experts favourable to their cause rather than to good legislation, and partly because experts are not without their own prejudices and agendas. I'd much rather the Surveillance Bill (or whatever it's called) Committee had a former director of MI5, a former Chief Constable and a Human Rights lawyer as expert permanent members, able to question other witnesses the same as MPs but without any direct voting rights and only able to change the clauses by influencing MPs, than effectively contrive an artificial argument by pitting them against each other on every vote.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4996440/Lord-Mandelson-must-remain-loyal-to-EU-to-guarantee-pension.html
In a GE it would be 100%
"In an interview with the House magazine, the Tory former chancellor said: “I’d be horrified if any of the people likely to be contenders started saying they were campaigning for ‘No’. - See more at: https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/ken-clarke-warns-tory-leadership-hopefuls-against-eu-tactics#sthash.3iwpBtKC.dpuf"
In any case, successive US administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have long been keen on the UK remaining part of the EU. That is the simple fact, and it ain't gonna change any time soon. The Leave side would do better to recognise this simple fact, and try to work out arguments to deal with it, rather than latch on to yet another lunatic conspiracy theory, adding the Obama administration to the ever-lengthening list of organisations whch have been inflitrated by dishonest Europhiles.
Whilst it is undoubtdly a decent sized faction, they'd do well to give prominence to the centre/centre-left (Kate Hoey) for instance and also engage some of the anti-EU more sensible unions.
" One of these obligations as a staff member of the Commission is to maintain a "duty of loyalty to the Communities". The rules also note that "an official has the right to freedom of expression, with due respect to the principles of loyalty and impartiality".
If they fail to demonstrate loyalty to the EU, Lord Mandelson can be "deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits", the rules say. "
Which should be quoted every time a current or ex staff member speaks out in favour of the EC.
The job of the Upper House is to ensure that the law as it is passed by the Lower House is fit for purpose, coherent, does not result in unforeseen consequences and abides by our constitutional arrangements. As such it should not be a place for politics but for reasoned analysis and amendment to make proposed laws better whilst abiding by their basic intent and principles.
The difference in the requirements of the two houses should - and I believe would - be sufficient to ensure a difference in both tone and nature of the debate and decisions made.
But yeah, wide range of threads please, as long as they're not by Don Brind.
Yes we all know that thanks, it's hardly news.
But the fact that they want us to represent their interests rather than our own (and get a bit peeved at the idea that we might not want to do that) is a pretty feeble argument for us staying in.
The EU debate on here is getting rather tiresome, with the same topics being gone over again and again, and the same arguments between the same people.
Can we have an AV thread, please?
To make that work, Theresa May would need to accept that George Osborne could keep his current role and continue to roam quite freely. I don't think either of them trusts the other enough though.
If they can't work together then the Conservatives would do best to find someone else that George Osborne does trust who has front-of-House skills and make him or her leader.
Oh those partisan undecideds
I don't think anyone could make any assumptions about how the remaining rump LD vote would split.
An elected HoL introduces - rather retains - a completely unnecessary political element. The use of PR makes that even worse by giving more unjustified power to parties.
A simple change that would be very valuable would be to make all HoL votes free votes.
Sorry Richard, you're not convincing anyone, either about your true views on this topic or with your substantive arguments on the related issues.
Why is it so hard to admit you are an EU supporter? Are you worried that might sound 'bonkers'?
I suppose I can see the problem if it means you get associated with some of the fanatical characters you might come across in the European Parliament or the Commission...
It's also hugely counter-productive. Sure, it will impress those (well represented on here) who think anyone who doesn't share their view that the EU is some sort of evil empire or who thinks that on balance staying In might be the least bad of the available options must be dishones and (even worse!) a 'Europhile'. For anyone else, it just looks completely bonkers to mention the guy's CV, since no-one, not a single sentient being, thinks that his CV is in the slightest bit relevant to the US position.
More to the point is that by the time the EU referendum takes place, the US will have a different government which may have a very different view. What the Obama administration thinks is neither here nor there.
There are ways of calling on expertise without replacing one chamber lacking democratic legitimacy with another also lacking in such legitimacy.
What we need is STV. When do we need it? Now!
Mr Mullins would do better to write about STV rather than pacts, designed to hel the Labour Party. So would Mr Eagles, of course. STV woud give individual electors some say in the outcome, rather than party manipulators.
New Thread New Thread
On Corbyn, I'm aware there was a bit of story regarding the lack of women in his shadow cabinet, but are his women troubles extending to not polling well with women or something? Labour are really going backwards, if that is the case. They've had an advantage with under 45 women for sometime now, and they would be silly to lose yet another demographic.
I agree that May and Osborne wouldn't really trust one another. I think Osborne, for a start would much prefer one of his acolytes to take the Conservative party leadership if he couldn't - so the likes of Javid, Hancock and even Perry would be pushed by him as opposed to May. I also think that May simply wouldn't be happy with merely being the face of the Osborne project in the way David Cameron, to all intents and purposes appears to be. I also think for any potential Tory party leader having a Conservative party dominated by Osborne acolytes does put them in a somewhat vulnerable position, especially if they don't have a comparable 'base' of supporters.
Being elected is not proof that a person has commonsense or moral groundedness. Quite the opposite, in fact, in all too many cases.
There are ways of fixing the HoL without replacing one chamber lacking expertise with another also lacking in such expertise.