How can an elite be 'representative'? It's a nonsense.
And what does 'where the whole electorate cannot be engaged...' mean?
You need to think of it in terms of outcome.
Take the old Co-Op, for example. In theory, this was a wonderfully democratic organisation where all members could be involved right up to board level through internal elections. In practice, it was more an excellent vehicle for those with the time and inclination to foist private hobby-horses on a retail conglomerate because the majority who might otherwise have stopped them simply weren't interested in that degree of engagemet. The new, professional structure is far less 'democratic' but delivers much more for members in term of what they're interested in: value and quality.
So I'm right then - you want to replace democracy with some kind of 'technocratic' government. At least we are getting to the nub of things now.
And who will choose this enlightened and disinterested group to lord it over the rest of us? 40 shilling freeholders perhaps, or their modern-day equivalent?
Or is even that too risky - perhaps the group should, to ensure a safe and 'professional' outcome, choose itself?
Again, you're missing the point. Other retailers are available. Likewise, other parties - or new ones - are available if any one falls foul of its voter base. That is an essential component of democracy and is one means by which a party should remain relevant. But as Labour is proving, the convulsions involved in that process mean it's better kept as a theoretical threat than being put into practice.
I like the BBC's choice of photo for the main page on the Clinton campaign hack story - it's of Clinton squinting seemingly in confusion at a computer screen. Quite amusing.
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
Saw that last night - the actions of people too afraid to confront the only options are to back down if they lose, or to split, as they are too opposed to Corbyn but too emotionally connected to Labour to split, so try this half measure which will only make him stronger.
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
Can't be done. But it's another step on the road to divorce.
Separate deal for Scotland - ranked 6th; Second referendum - ranked 9th;
Well that's the SNP's 'Summer of Independence' off to a roaring start.
Interestingly the answer to 'UK vs EU' or UK vs Single Market is (virtually) identical - 55 for UK....
It seems to have become accepted wisdom and conventional media narrative that the SNP vote both is pro-EU, pro-Independence, yet the poll yields;
2015 SNP Vote for SIndy: 65% (35% against or undecided) 2015 SNP Vote for EU not UK: 61% (39% against or undecided)
They do look very much like English Labour numbers with a very sizeable minority that do not fit the pro-Indy, pro-EU narrative.
Utter bollox PS: the poll I mean not your goodself.
In what way is a 1000+ base size poll 'utter bollox'?
One might form the impression that Nats were impervious to data and facts.....surely not?
you frothers hav espent months on here whinging about polls and ejaculating about how wrong they got everything and what rubbish they were. Suddenly one load of bollox that is against SNP is tablets of stone handed down from above. Get a grip.
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
Saw that last night - the actions of people too afraid to confront the only options are to back down if they lose, or to split, as they are too opposed to Corbyn but too emotionally connected to Labour to split, so try this half measure which will only make him stronger.
I would not be at all surprised if they take this action. Every step of the way from day one, those in the PLP opposed to Corby have taken the wrong option. They could write a handbook entitled "How not to organise a coup".
It's another legal challenge they could not possibly win, same as the one earlier this week.
As I said a few days ago, those in the PLP responsible for organising this coup , who criticise Cobyn for his lack of organisational abilities need to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
The historian of Rome Ronald Syme used to say that it doesn't much matter what form of government you ostensibly have, it is always an oligarchy under the hood. I think that is right and that representative democracy is really about tweaking the constitution of the oligarchy rather than any real representation of the views of the masses, mediated or not. I also think there is widespread tacit acceptance that you can have too much democracy. Look at the death penalty: we would get it back on a referendum but no mainstream political party would dream of suggesting it goes to a referendum, despite the fact that the issue is much easier to understand than AV or EU.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
Saw that last night - the actions of people too afraid to confront the only options are to back down if they lose, or to split, as they are too opposed to Corbyn but too emotionally connected to Labour to split, so try this half measure which will only make him stronger.
I would not be at all surprised if they take this action. Every step of the way from day one, those in the PLP opposed to Corby have taken the wrong option. They could write a handbook entitled "How not to organise a coup".
It's another legal challenge they could not possibly win, same as the one earlier this week.
As I said a few days ago, those in the PLP responsible for organising this coup , who criticise Cobyn for his lack of organisational abilities need to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
They had no other option open to them. The rules are utterly insane, but those are the rules.
I would not be at all surprised if they take this action. Every step of the way from day one, those in the PLP opposed to Corby have taken the wrong option. They could write a handbook entitled "How not to organise a coup".
It's another legal challenge they could not possibly win, same as the one earlier this week.
As I said a few days ago, those in the PLP responsible for organising this coup , who criticise Cobyn for his lack of organisational abilities need to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
Even if they did win the legal challenge, what good would that do? It would be done if the members once again back Corbyn, so in essence it would be taking away the Labour brand by force from the leader and the members, and even assuming potential labour voters are less enamored of Corbyn than the membership, they'd just end up fighting the next election against Corbynite candidates regardless. A semi-split would be regarded as a split, which is what they really need to do if they are this opposed, this unwilling to try and wait Corbyn out and wait for you and yours to 'wake up'.
I'm not a Labour voter (never voted Tory either), but I thought Ed M would be an ok PM (a little crappy perhaps, like most PMs), and I really don't think Corbyn can appeal to enough to win a General Election - but the PLP's actions, the delayed challenges, the confused tactics, the rumoured legal maneuvering, it just makes me think they are emotionally not able to handle what is going on but are also too emotionally invested to leave, and so are now acting irrationally.
I don't say that lightly - I always try very hard to see the rationality behind the actions of others in politics, even where I vehemently disagree with it (people voting for Trump for instance I can understand even if I would never do so), but I'm really struggling with the PLP at the moment.
Part of the problem is tangential to the subject of Mr Herdson's piece - because the PLP obviously will not want to blame the voters for making their choices, but it feels like that is what the problem is, in that the selectorate keep making the 'wrong' choice, and they cannot face up to the fact they cannot seem to convince the selectorate of that, and are looking for a way to stay with those members while being honest that they don't think Corbyn is up to the job.
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
Saw that last night - the actions of people too afraid to confront the only options are to back down if they lose, or to split, as they are too opposed to Corbyn but too emotionally connected to Labour to split, so try this half measure which will only make him stronger.
I would not be at all surprised if they take this action. Every step of the way from day one, those in the PLP opposed to Corby have taken the wrong option. They could write a handbook entitled "How not to organise a coup".
It's another legal challenge they could not possibly win, same as the one earlier this week.
As I said a few days ago, those in the PLP responsible for organising this coup , who criticise Cobyn for his lack of organisational abilities need to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
The historian of Rome Ronald Syme used to say that it doesn't much matter what form of government you ostensibly have, it is always an oligarchy under the hood. I think that is right and that representative democracy is really about tweaking the constitution of the oligarchy rather than any real representation of the views of the masses, mediated or not. I also think there is widespread tacit acceptance that you can have too much democracy. Look at the death penalty: we would get it back on a referendum but no mainstream political party would dream of suggesting it goes to a referendum, despite the fact that the issue is much easier to understand than AV or EU.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
One can always point to extreme, but not necessarily representative, cases.
Plenty of oligarchies have been rotten to the core and failed their people (eg 18th century Poland and Venice).
Mr. X, can only assume you're right (been a while since I read about that particular war, though I'm likely to re-read Donald Kagan's book sooner or later). Mob hysteria is exactly right.
The historian of Rome Ronald Syme used to say that it doesn't much matter what form of government you ostensibly have, it is always an oligarchy under the hood. I think that is right and that representative democracy is really about tweaking the constitution of the oligarchy rather than any real representation of the views of the masses, mediated or not. I also think there is widespread tacit acceptance that you can have too much democracy. Look at the death penalty: we would get it back on a referendum but no mainstream political party would dream of suggesting it goes to a referendum, despite the fact that the issue is much easier to understand than AV or EU.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
One can always point to extreme, but not necessarily representative, cases.
Plenty of oligarchies have been rotten to the core and failed their people (eg 18th century Poland and Venice).
Who best fits the role of the modern Publius Clodius Pulcher?
The historian of Rome Ronald Syme used to say that it doesn't much matter what form of government you ostensibly have, it is always an oligarchy under the hood. I think that is right and that representative democracy is really about tweaking the constitution of the oligarchy rather than any real representation of the views of the masses, mediated or not. I also think there is widespread tacit acceptance that you can have too much democracy. Look at the death penalty: we would get it back on a referendum but no mainstream political party would dream of suggesting it goes to a referendum, despite the fact that the issue is much easier to understand than AV or EU.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
One can always point to extreme, but not necessarily representative, cases.
Plenty of oligarchies have been rotten to the core and failed their people (eg 18th century Poland and Venice).
Generally though only when there was little or no check on them as a class.
The historian of Rome Ronald Syme used to say that it doesn't much matter what form of government you ostensibly have, it is always an oligarchy under the hood. I think that is right and that representative democracy is really about tweaking the constitution of the oligarchy rather than any real representation of the views of the masses, mediated or not. I also think there is widespread tacit acceptance that you can have too much democracy. Look at the death penalty: we would get it back on a referendum but no mainstream political party would dream of suggesting it goes to a referendum, despite the fact that the issue is much easier to understand than AV or EU.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
Compared to the 'benign dictator' scenario, a democracy *should* provide ongoing incentive for the ruler to take some account of public opinion so keeping them on the straight and narrow, the opportunity to throw them out should power go to their head, and legitimise the existence of an opposition such that if the ruler dies or gets thrown out there is a ready made alternative....
The historian of Rome Ronald Syme used to say that it doesn't much matter what form of government you ostensibly have, it is always an oligarchy under the hood. I think that is right and that representative democracy is really about tweaking the constitution of the oligarchy rather than any real representation of the views of the masses, mediated or not. I also think there is widespread tacit acceptance that you can have too much democracy. Look at the death penalty: we would get it back on a referendum but no mainstream political party would dream of suggesting it goes to a referendum, despite the fact that the issue is much easier to understand than AV or EU.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
One can always point to extreme, but not necessarily representative, cases.
Plenty of oligarchies have been rotten to the core and failed their people (eg 18th century Poland and Venice).
I don't say oligarchies are good, I do say they are what we tacitly end up with. I also don't say that they are immune from failure.
You say Athens is an extreme case, but 1. there aren't that many cases to look at of direct democracy at the sovereign nation scale and 2. on paper Athens should have been an extreme on the upside: small, wealthy, cohesive, well-educated community so bloody good at moral and political philosophy that it produced Socrates and Plato. What happened next?
The key distinction between the UK and the US is the US has a president who is Head of State and the party's use primaries to select their candidate for that office, as does France which also has President elected by national popular vote. The UK has a monarch and a non-elected Head of State. In neither the US nor France do parties have primaries to select their candidates for Speaker of the House or Prime Minister which are their equivalent of the UK Prime Minister.
In Australia which shares a monarch with us only recently has the ALP allowed members to be consulted on its leader while the Liberal Party still elects its leader by MPs alone, the number of swift topplings by MPs of recent leaders and PMs is testament to that. Labour's problem is that it has no mechanism to remove a leader by vote of confidence by MPs as the Tories did when they replaced IDS with Michael Howard despite IDS, like Corbyn, having a clear mandate from party members
I would not be at all surprised if they take this action. Every step of the way from day one, those in the PLP opposed to Corby have taken the wrong option. They could write a handbook entitled "How not to organise a coup".
It's another legal challenge they could not possibly win, same as the one earlier this week.
As I said a few days ago, those in the PLP responsible for organising this coup , who criticise Cobyn for his lack of organisational abilities need to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
Part of the problem is tangential to the subject of Mr Herdson's piece - because the PLP obviously will not want to blame the voters for making their choices, but it feels like that is what the problem is, in that the selectorate keep making the 'wrong' choice, and they cannot face up to the fact they cannot seem to convince the selectorate of that, and are looking for a way to stay with those members while being honest that they don't think Corbyn is up to the job.
They need to be honest with themselves and the selectorate about their motivations.
If they are wanting to drag the Party back to the right, then they need to accept that with the membership they have at the moment, it is not going to happen and they should either go and find themselves a new political home or form a new Party. That would not cause a major exodus of Labour MP's because a large number of the 172 are not really that right wing anyway (they are just not as far left as Corbyn)
If they are genuinely concerned that Corbyn is unelectable and a crap leader and that they have the survival of the Labour Party at heart, then they should publicly accept that the membership are in favour of the Party moving in a Corbynite direction and state that they will fully back someone who shares his views. It may be that that person is an MP who does not have all that much Parliamentary experience, but if he has leadership qualities that Corbyn is said to lack, then that person, with the full backing of the PLP can get experience on the job and make a fist of it.
The historian of Rome Ronald Syme used to say that it doesn't much matter what form of government you ostensibly have, it is always an oligarchy under the hood. I think that is right and that representative democracy is really about tweaking the constitution of the oligarchy rather than any real representation of the views of the masses, mediated or not. I also think there is widespread tacit acceptance that you can have too much democracy. Look at the death penalty: we would get it back on a referendum but no mainstream political party would dream of suggesting it goes to a referendum, despite the fact that the issue is much easier to understand than AV or EU.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
One can always point to extreme, but not necessarily representative, cases.
Plenty of oligarchies have been rotten to the core and failed their people (eg 18th century Poland and Venice).
I don't say oligarchies are good, I do say they are what we tacitly end up with. I also don't say that they are immune from failure.
You say Athens is an extreme case, but 1. there aren't that many cases to look at of direct democracy at the sovereign nation scale and 2. on paper Athens should have been an extreme on the upside: small, wealthy, cohesive, well-educated community so bloody good at moral and political philosophy that it produced Socrates and Plato. What happened next?
I have always thought that the main advantage of representative democracy (and particularly FPTP) was the ability to kick out the government in a civilised way.
Much of the talk around May's reshuffle was how brutal it was; I'm reading a biography of Richerd III at the moment and I wonder what he or his contemporaries would have thought...
The historian of Rome Ronald Syme used to say that it doesn't much matter what form of government you ostensibly have, it is always an oligarchy under the hood. I think that is right and that representative democracy is really about tweaking the constitution of the oligarchy rather than any real representation of the views of the masses, mediated or not. I also think there is widespread tacit acceptance that you can have too much democracy. Look at the death penalty: we would get it back on a referendum but no mainstream political party would dream of suggesting it goes to a referendum, despite the fact that the issue is much easier to understand than AV or EU.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
If we had direct democracy we would have higher taxes for the rich, lower taxes for everyone else, more money for the NHS and education, less money for welfare and overseas aid, gay marriage and maybe the death penalty, and much tighter controls on immigration, a mix of left and right but not necessarily the best parts of either
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
Saw that last night - the actions of people too afraid to confront the only options are to back down if they lose, or to split, as they are too opposed to Corbyn but too emotionally connected to Labour to split, so try this half measure which will only make him stronger.
I would not be at all surprised if they take this action. Every step of the way from day one, those in the PLP opposed to Corby have taken the wrong option. They could write a handbook entitled "How not to organise a coup".
It's another legal challenge they could not possibly win, same as the one earlier this week.
As I said a few days ago, those in the PLP responsible for organising this coup , who criticise Cobyn for his lack of organisational abilities need to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
One thing JC can do is organise.
Actually I think that is the one thing that he cannot do. He couldn't organise a bunfight in a bakery.
The shadowy people around him can organise though; but mostly are interested in internal control of the party rather than anything more constructive in the way of parliamentary opposition.
How can an elite be 'representative'? It's a nonsense.
And what does 'where the whole electorate cannot be engaged...' mean?
You need to think of it in terms of outcome.
Take the old Co-Op, for example. In theory, this was a wonderfully democratic organisation where all members could be involved right up to board level through internal elections. In practice, it was more an excellent vehicle for those with the time and inclination to foist private hobby-horses on a retail conglomerate because the majority who might otherwise have stopped them simply weren't interested in that degree of engagemet. The new, professional structure is far less 'democratic' but delivers much more for members in term of what they're interested in: value and quality.
So I'm right then - you want to replace democracy with some kind of 'technocratic' government. At least we are getting to the nub of things now.
And who will choose this enlightened and disinterested group to lord it over the rest of us? 40 shilling freeholders perhaps, or their modern-day equivalent?
Or is even that too risky - perhaps the group should, to ensure a safe and 'professional' outcome, choose itself?
You seem to be very concerned the parties not being democratic in how they present their choice to us will mean the end of democracy itself. The parties could all be dictatorships, but we the people would still get to choose which candidate of theirs we wanted, and if we didn't like their choices we could stand ourselves or form new parties, which would force them to think again about how they pick their candidates. I started out reading this article being uncertain, but you are making me lean more and more to the view that a commitment to absolute internal democracy as it pertains to the selection of candidates is not a panacea for all ills and does not add as much value to the process as it seems.
A benign dictator who you agree with must be the best of all possible governments (which is of course proxy for being in charge yourself, without all the effort). The only two problems seem to be that you can't rid of them if/when the power goes to their head and they go mad or become less benign, and when they eventually die everything tends to fall apart and turn nasty.
Not always, see Franco, although debateable whether he was benign
The historian of Rome Ronald Syme used to say that it doesn't much matter what form of government you ostensibly have, it is always an oligarchy under the hood. I think that is right and that representative democracy is really about tweaking the constitution of the oligarchy rather than any real representation of the views of the masses, mediated or not. I also think there is widespread tacit acceptance that you can have too much democracy. Look at the death penalty: we would get it back on a referendum but no mainstream political party would dream of suggesting it goes to a referendum, despite the fact that the issue is much easier to understand than AV or EU.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
If we had direct democracy we would have higher taxes for the rich, lower taxes for everyone else, more money for the NHS and education, less money for welfare and overseas aid, gay marriage and maybe the death penalty, and much tighter controls on immigration, a mix of left and right but not necessarily the best parts of either
We would also have lots of contradictory votes. Tax cuts but no spending cuts etc
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
Saw that last night - the actions of people too afraid to confront the only options are to back down if they lose, or to split, as they are too opposed to Corbyn but too emotionally connected to Labour to split, so try this half measure which will only make him stronger.
I would not be at all surprised if they take this action. Every step of the way from day one, those in the PLP opposed to Corby have taken the wrong option. They could write a handbook entitled "How not to organise a coup".
It's another legal challenge they could not possibly win, same as the one earlier this week.
As I said a few days ago, those in the PLP responsible for organising this coup , who criticise Cobyn for his lack of organisational abilities need to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
One thing JC can do is organise.
Actually I think that is the one thing that he cannot do. He couldn't organise a bunfight in a bakery.
The shadowy people around him can organise though; but mostly are interested in internal control of the party rather than anything more constructive in the way of parliamentary opposition.
We'll have to agree to differ. I base my opinion on personal knowledge - admittedly, a long time ago, but he doesn't seem to have changed much. Certainly he has never believed that representative democracy can produce socialism, and I suspect that almost all Peebies would agree with him on that point.
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
They are really asking for it.
The "Labour rebels" really want a kicking from voters of royal proportions.
But their actions are so stupid and desperate they are no longer a political threat, they are just a nuisance but an embarrassing nuisance till they lose their deposits in the next GE.
The thought that they can launch a legal challenge for the Labour Party name has the same chance as the legal challenge against Corbyn, perhaps even less, it shows how stupid they are. But it will confirm the suspicion of everyone that the "rebels" are not "rebels" but are and always have been "traitors".
How can an elite be 'representative'? It's a nonsense.
And what does 'where the whole electorate cannot be engaged...' mean?
You need to think of it in terms of outcome.
Take the old Co-Op, for example. In theory, this was a wonderfully democratic organisation where all members could be involved right up to board level through internal elections. In practice, it was more an excellent vehicle for those with the time and inclination to foist private hobby-horses on a retail conglomerate because the majority who might otherwise have stopped them simply weren't interested in that degree of engagemet. The new, professional structure is far less 'democratic' but delivers much more for members in term of what they're interested in: value and quality.
So I'm right then - you want to replace democracy with some kind of 'technocratic' government. At least we are getting to the nub of things now.
And who will choose this enlightened and disinterested group to lord it over the rest of us? 40 shilling freeholders perhaps, or their modern-day equivalent?
Or is even that too risky - perhaps the group should, to ensure a safe and 'professional' outcome, choose itself?
You seem to be very concerned the parties not being democratic in how they present their choice to us will mean the end of democracy itself. The parties could all be dictatorships, but we the people would still get to choose which candidate of theirs we wanted, and if we didn't like their choices we could stand ourselves or form new parties, which would force them to think again about how they pick their candidates. I started out reading this article being uncertain, but you are making me lean more and more to the view that a commitment to absolute internal democracy as it pertains to the selection of candidates is not a panacea for all ills and does not add as much value to the process as it seems.
A benign dictator who you agree with must be the best of all possible governments (which is of course proxy for being in charge yourself, without all the effort). The only two problems seem to be that you can't rid of them if/when the power goes to their head and they go mad or become less benign, and when they eventually die everything tends to fall apart and turn nasty.
Not always, see Franco, although debateable whether he was benign
Spain was fortunate that Franco picked the right person for what for him was tye wrong reason but which for Spain was the right one.
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
The historian of Rome Ronald Syme used to say that it doesn't much matter what form of government you ostensibly have, it is always an oligarchy under the hood. I think that is right and that representative democracy is really about tweaking the constitution of the oligarchy rather than any real representation of the views of the masses, mediated or not. I also think there is widespread tacit acceptance that you can have too much democracy. Look at the death penalty: we would get it back on a referendum but no mainstream political party would dream of suggesting it goes to a referendum, despite the fact that the issue is much easier to understand than AV or EU.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
If we had direct democracy we would have higher taxes for the rich, lower taxes for everyone else, more money for the NHS and education, less money for welfare and overseas aid, gay marriage and maybe the death penalty, and much tighter controls on immigration, a mix of left and right but not necessarily the best parts of either
We would also have lots of contradictory votes. Tax cuts but no spending cuts etc
The historian of Rome Ronald Syme used to say that it doesn't much matter what form of government you ostensibly have, it is always an oligarchy under the hood. I think that is right and that representative democracy is really about tweaking the constitution of the oligarchy rather than any real representation of the views of the masses, mediated or not. I also think there is widespread tacit acceptance that you can have too much democracy. Look at the death penalty: we would get it back on a referendum but no mainstream political party would dream of suggesting it goes to a referendum, despite the fact that the issue is much easier to understand than AV or EU.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
If we had direct democracy we would have higher taxes for the rich, lower taxes for everyone else, more money for the NHS and education, less money for welfare and overseas aid, gay marriage and maybe the death penalty, and much tighter controls on immigration, a mix of left and right but not necessarily the best parts of either
We would also have lots of contradictory votes. Tax cuts but no spending cuts etc
There would be votes for higher income tax on those earning more than £150,000 and higher corporation tax but votes for a lower basic rate of income tax and lower inheritance tax too. There would be votes for cuts to benefits for the unemployed and to housing benefit and to child benefit paid to parents with more than 2 children and to overseas aid but votes to increase the state pension and spend more on the NHS
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes. In a political system that works and produces results, elites should not exist, only when it fails an elite appears.
It's not a coincidence that elitism in the west has risen to prominence in the last 10-15 years, along with western decline.
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
They are really asking for it.
The "Labour rebels" really want a kicking from voters of royal proportions.
But their actions are so stupid and desperate they are no longer a political threat, they are just a nuisance but an embarrassing nuisance till they lose their deposits in the next GE.
The thought that they can launch a legal challenge for the Labour Party name has the same chance as the legal challenge against Corbyn, perhaps even less, it shows how stupid they are. But it will confirm the suspicion of everyone that the "rebels" are not "rebels" but are and always have been "traitors".
If they took this step into the abyss, surely they would risk actually their Labour Party membership. When you sign up you have to say that you support the aims and values of the Labour Party. While that might be highly ambiguous, surely trying to ride roughshod over the democratic will of the Party membership and taking legal action to do so, would be against the aims and visions of the Labour Party.
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes. In a political system that works and produces results, elites should not exist, only when it fails an elite appears.
It's not a coincidence that elitism in the west has risen to prominence in the last 10-15 years, along with western decline.
You can't define the elite. That's my point. The elite has become a catch all term that nobody can define.
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes. In a political system that works and produces results, elites should not exist, only when it fails an elite appears.
It's not a coincidence that elitism in the west has risen to prominence in the last 10-15 years, along with western decline.
Every society will always have an elite, because:
1. Some people are more capable than others, and they should rise. 2. Some people are more motivated than others, and those who aren't should be less involved.
The only problems are those of access and competition. Elites are both natural and necessary.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes. In a political system that works and produces results, elites should not exist, only when it fails an elite appears.
It's not a coincidence that elitism in the west has risen to prominence in the last 10-15 years, along with western decline.
By contrast to the non-Etonian, non-Oxbridge, non-wealthy PM and Cabinet and establishment we had in the 1950s when we still had an Empire of course
How can an elite be 'representative'? It's a nonsense.
And what does 'where the whole electorate cannot be engaged...' mean?
You need to think of it in terms of outcome.
Take the old Co-Op, for example. In theory, this was a wonderfully democratic organisation where all members could be involved right up to board level through internal elections. In practice, it was more an excellent vehicle for those with the time and inclination to foist private hobby-horses on a retail conglomerate because the majority who might otherwise have stopped them simply weren't interested in that degree of engagemet. The new, professional structure is far less 'democratic' but delivers much more for members in term of what they're interested in: value and quality.
So I'm right then - you want to replace democracy with some kind of 'technocratic' government. At least we are getting to the nub of things now.
And who will choose this enlightened and disinterested group to lord it over the rest of us? 40 shilling freeholders perhaps, or their modern-day equivalent?
Or is even that too risky - perhaps the group should, to ensure a safe and 'professional' outcome, choose itself?
You seem to be very concerned the parties not being democratic in how they present their choice to us will mean the end of democracy itself. The parties could all be dictatorships, but we the people would still get to choose which candidate of theirs we wanted, and if we didn't like their choices we could stand ourselves or form new parties, which would force them to think again about how they pick their candidates. I started out reading this article being uncertain, but you are making me lean more and more to the view that a commitment to absolute internal democracy as it pertains to the selection of candidates is not a panacea for all ills and does not add as much value to the process as it seems.
A benign dictator who you agree with must be the best of all possible governments (which is of course proxy for being in charge yourself, without all the effort). The only two problems seem to be that you can't rid of them if/when the power goes to their head and they go mad or become less benign, and when they eventually die everything tends to fall apart and turn nasty.
Not always, see Franco, although debateable whether he was benign
Spain was fortunate that Franco picked the right person for what for him was tye wrong reason but which for Spain was the right one.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Funny enough California's finances are pretty ok now, after the public voted for a tax rise to reverse their previous tax cut.
They tried tax cuts in the 80's believing all the nonsense about trickle down economics, when it failed and California went bankrupt due to low tax collection, they voted for a tax rise.
And don't tell me that it would not have happened at all if they never had allowed the people to vote. In Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal did the same with the same result and was booted for a democrat (in the deep south! ) after their bankruptcy.
In both cases low taxes lead to a bankrupt state and where reversed, one by the public and another by a governor, 2 different systems, same course of events, same result.
On topic, what's poisonous is the combination of powerful party memberships and FPTP. If it was just the former then it wouldn't matter when an opposition party decided to spend a decade or so entertaining itself in a gentleman's manner, another party would grow to take its place.
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes. In a political system that works and produces results, elites should not exist, only when it fails an elite appears.
It's not a coincidence that elitism in the west has risen to prominence in the last 10-15 years, along with western decline.
By contrast to the non-Etonian, non-Oxbridge, non-wealthy PM and Cabinet and establishment we had in the 1950s when we still had an Empire of course
And those people presided over it's collapse. Suez War, Winds of Change and all that.
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
Saw that last night - the actions of people too afraid to confront the only options are to back down if they lose, or to split, as they are too opposed to Corbyn but too emotionally connected to Labour to split, so try this half measure which will only make him stronger.
I would not be at all surprised if they take this action. Every step of the way from day one, those in the PLP opposed to Corby have taken the wrong option. They could write a handbook entitled "How not to organise a coup".
It's another legal challenge they could not possibly win, same as the one earlier this week.
As I said a few days ago, those in the PLP responsible for organising this coup , who criticise Cobyn for his lack of organisational abilities need to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
One thing JC can do is organise.
Actually I think that is the one thing that he cannot do. He couldn't organise a bunfight in a bakery.
The shadowy people around him can organise though; but mostly are interested in internal control of the party rather than anything more constructive in the way of parliamentary opposition.
We'll have to agree to differ. I base my opinion on personal knowledge - admittedly, a long time ago, but he doesn't seem to have changed much. Certainly he has never believed that representative democracy can produce socialism, and I suspect that almost all Peebies would agree with him on that point.
Corbyn is a shambles. What is around him is a cult, not an organisation.
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes. In a political system that works and produces results, elites should not exist, only when it fails an elite appears.
It's not a coincidence that elitism in the west has risen to prominence in the last 10-15 years, along with western decline.
You can't define the elite. That's my point. The elite has become a catch all term that nobody can define.
1. Some people are more capable than others, and they should rise. 2. Some people are more motivated than others, and those who aren't should be less involved.
The only problems are those of access and competition. Elites are both natural and necessary.
Some people are more capable in their area than others and should rise, however they should not remain in place once it's proven they are no longer capable, and their position should not be inherited.
When an Elite forms it means there is limited access and competition, as elites are selfserving cliques, and tend to be incompetent and indifferent due to the security of their position.
A perfect example is the Soviet Union and other eastern block countries, as the system stagnated an indifferent and incompetent party elite formed, which made reform impossible to succeed, the only way to replace them was revolution.
A successful system is the one that allows renewal of ideas and people, one that allows change to take place when it is necessary. Elitism simply leads to a build up of problems and pressure for change until it bursts like the French Revolution.
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes. In a political system that works and produces results, elites should not exist, only when it fails an elite appears.
It's not a coincidence that elitism in the west has risen to prominence in the last 10-15 years, along with western decline.
You can't define the elite. That's my point. The elite has become a catch all term that nobody can define.
Define or be defined.
I don't believe in the notion of an elite, so it's not my job to define it. There is a fission between open and closed, not an 'elite' and the rest. It's the stuff of bitter reactionary fantasy.
On topic, what's poisonous is the combination of powerful party memberships and FPTP. If it was just the former then it wouldn't matter when an opposition party decided to spend a decade or so entertaining itself in a gentleman's manner, another party would grow to take its place.
There where mass party memberships in the not so recent past and the parties were very functional.
If people have forgotten how to deal with it, the answer is not a return to feudalism that David Herdson proposes.
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes.
You can have meritocratic elites. These won't be caste systems.
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes. In a political system that works and produces results, elites should not exist, only when it fails an elite appears.
It's not a coincidence that elitism in the west has risen to prominence in the last 10-15 years, along with western decline.
By contrast to the non-Etonian, non-Oxbridge, non-wealthy PM and Cabinet and establishment we had in the 1950s when we still had an Empire of course
And those people presided over it's collapse. Suez War, Winds of Change and all that.
It was going to end regardless anyway whoever was in charge
Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.
Surely making the election a referendum on foreign policy is the worst possible option for Hillary?
She's between a rock and a hard place on policy because if she says that Trump's protectionism will be bad for the economy she loses her left wing, yet this is precisely the position she needs to take to capture the centre.
It's pretty much why I'd vote for Trump, if I were an American. If you're a White male (and to a lesser extent, a White female) who's not a member of the elite, what you could expect from a Clinton Presidency is no increase in your income, relentless demonisation for being a racist and bigot, and as much of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as she could get past Congress. Why would one want to vote for that?
You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you.
If anyone wants to understand how Western politics is developing, they should read Steve Bruce's book, The Edge of The Union. It was published in 1993, and describes the world outlook of Ulster Unionists. It now reads very presciently. The views that were expressed in the book -the sense that one's group is on the slide demographically, economically, and in terms of status, that one has gone from being a dominant group to marginalised group during one's lifetime, that the people in charge are now hostile to you, are now widely shared by White, working class, and lower middle class voters, in the UK, USA, France, and other countries.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes.
You can have meritocratic elites. These won't be caste systems.
The results of a meritocratic elite is still the same as any other elite. A small number of selfserving people secure in their positions will always have the same negative results, no matter what their merits.
A perfect example is a CEO in a company, even if he drives the company to the ground he will still be rewarded for his services with a golden parachute.
"The campaign has not played out the way she imagined, with Republican nominee Donald Trump offering little detail about his promises to make America rich again. Still, when Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination this week, she stuck with her plan to lay out her economic proposals, declaring “I sweat the details of policy.”
As Clinton sets off on a three-day bus tour, she is struggling to connect with an economically anxious electorate: General-election polls show that voters, and by vast margins working-class whites, trust Trump more than Clinton to handle the economy...
Campaign officials say they have constantly heard from donors and outside advisers that their candidate needs to strip down her economic message. It's a challenge, they say, that weighs on them. “You don’t want to be, as the expression goes, bringing a calculator to a knife fight," said one senior Clinton adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity to frankly discuss the campaign strategy.
Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.
Surely making the election a referendum on foreign policy is the worst possible option for Hillary?
She's between a rock and a hard place on policy because if she says that Trump's protectionism will be bad for the economy she loses her left wing, yet this is precisely the position she needs to take to capture the centre.
Would that be like the "reset" with Putin? (I seem to remember a fake comedy red button being waved about).
Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.
Surely making the election a referendum on foreign policy is the worst possible option for Hillary?
She's between a rock and a hard place on policy because if she says that Trump's protectionism will be bad for the economy she loses her left wing, yet this is precisely the position she needs to take to capture the centre.
Would that be like the "reset" with Putin? (I seem to remember a fake comedy red button being waved about).
It was intended that this would be the Russian word for "reset". Clinton explained that she wanted to reset relations between Russia and the United States. However, Lavrov explained to Clinton that "перегрузка" actually means "overcharge". The two pressed the button anyway.
This phrase "the elite" that you insist on using is becoming very popular on here, and elsewhere. Yet no-one can define it: it's essentially meaningless. If it has a definition at all it seems to just mean those who champion openness rather than closed-minded identity politics of white ethnic-nationalism.
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes. In a political system that works and produces results, elites should not exist, only when it fails an elite appears.
It's not a coincidence that elitism in the west has risen to prominence in the last 10-15 years, along with western decline.
You can't define the elite. That's my point. The elite has become a catch all term that nobody can define.
Define or be defined.
I don't believe in the notion of an elite, so it's not my job to define it. There is a fission between open and closed, not an 'elite' and the rest. It's the stuff of bitter reactionary fantasy.
I think we have an elite, but I think it's more fluid than people think, and you are right it has become a catch all term for people doing things we don't like. It's like politicians with decades of experience who declare themselves outsiders, defining outsiders in as convoluted a fashion as they like to make that true, and similarly people who seem to be of the elite, rather than accept they can be but still be for the people as a whole, tie themselves in knots to pretend they are not of the elite.
Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.
Surely making the election a referendum on foreign policy is the worst possible option for Hillary?
She's between a rock and a hard place on policy because if she says that Trump's protectionism will be bad for the economy she loses her left wing, yet this is precisely the position she needs to take to capture the centre.
Between Hillary and Trump:
Trump will be too busy tweeting all day to actually do any damage by governing. Hillary will be too busy doing damage by governing all day to do any tweeting.
The world can survive 4 years of Trump tweeting from the W.H., I don't think it can survive Hillary screaming to everyone to get her way for 4 years in the W.H.
There is an elite in David Herdson's mathematical sense of the word, sure, as in a high-earning small segment of the population, but it's pretty fluid, as you say. The idea that we have some sort of rich liberal oligarchy colluding to maintain metropolitan power and fuck over the natives is absurd. Yet it is accepted as a truth on here from ostensibly intelligent people.
That said, this is also the forum where people who never in their whole lives have visited France openly support outcomes simply because they will "annoy the frogs", and are stoutly defended for their views, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
The reduction in lightweight (HDPE) plastic bags in shops with the 5p charge is not necessarily a good thing once you take account of their replacements according to the Environment Agency in 2006.
40% of lightweight (HDPE) shop plastic bags were used as bin liners. Heavyweight bags sold for the purpose as bin liners to replace the now absent lightweight shop bags are more harmful to the environment.
Substitute bags to carry shopping are not necessarily better for the environment. The substitute paper, LDPE, non-woven PP and cotton bags should be reused at least four, five, 14 and 173 times respectively to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than conventional HDPE carrier bags.
The paper bag has to be used four or more times to reduce its global warming potential to below that of the conventional HDPE bag, but was significantly worse than the conventional HDPE bag for human toxicity and terrestrial ecotoxicity due to the effect of paper production. However, it is unlikely the paper bag can be regularly reused the required number of times due to its low durability.
The cotton bag has a greater impact than the conventional HDPE bag in seven of the nine impact categories even when used 173 times (i.e. the number of uses required to reduce the GWP of the cotton bag to that of the conventional HDPE bag with average secondary reuse). The impact was considerably larger in categories such as acidification and aquatic & terrestrial ecotoxicity due to the energy used to produce cotton yarn and the fertilisers used during the growth of the cotton.
Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.
Surely making the election a referendum on foreign policy is the worst possible option for Hillary?
She's between a rock and a hard place on policy because if she says that Trump's protectionism will be bad for the economy she loses her left wing, yet this is precisely the position she needs to take to capture the centre.
Between Hillary and Trump:
Trump will be too busy tweeting all day to actually do any damage by governing. Hillary will be too busy doing damage by governing all day to do any tweeting.
The world can survive 4 years of Trump tweeting from the W.H., I don't think it can survive Hillary screaming to everyone to get her way for 4 years in the W.H.
Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.
Surely making the election a referendum on foreign policy is the worst possible option for Hillary?
She's between a rock and a hard place on policy because if she says that Trump's protectionism will be bad for the economy she loses her left wing, yet this is precisely the position she needs to take to capture the centre.
Between Hillary and Trump:
Trump will be too busy tweeting all day to actually do any damage by governing. Hillary will be too busy doing damage by governing all day to do any tweeting.
The world can survive 4 years of Trump tweeting from the W.H., I don't think it can survive Hillary screaming to everyone to get her way for 4 years in the W.H.
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
They are really asking for it.
The "Labour rebels" really want a kicking from voters of royal proportions.
But their actions are so stupid and desperate they are no longer a political threat, they are just a nuisance but an embarrassing nuisance till they lose their deposits in the next GE.
The thought that they can launch a legal challenge for the Labour Party name has the same chance as the legal challenge against Corbyn, perhaps even less, it shows how stupid they are. But it will confirm the suspicion of everyone that the "rebels" are not "rebels" but are and always have been "traitors".
If they took this step into the abyss, surely they would risk actually their Labour Party membership. When you sign up you have to say that you support the aims and values of the Labour Party. While that might be highly ambiguous, surely trying to ride roughshod over the democratic will of the Party membership and taking legal action to do so, would be against the aims and visions of the Labour Party.
I agree with you. De facto of course such MPs would be seeking to return to the pre-1981 system whereby the Leader was selected entirely by the PLP.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Here's the tragedy — and one that would never occur if an "art of the trade deal" Trump were in the Oval Office: All of our bad trade deals could have been good ones if we had simply bargained tougher. Safeguards going forward should include: (1) prompt triggers and automatic renegotiations if the trade gains are not distributed fairly, (2) equally prompt relief against NTBs, (3) ironclad sanctions against currency manipulation, (4) zero tolerance on intellectual property theft, and (5) stringent environmental and health and safety standards — without the proverbial "wiggle room" characterizing proposed deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit. When these two conditions are met, real world trade will converge with textbook theory, this country will be far more prosperous, and a now shattered faith in the global trading order will be restored. Only a Reagan or a Trump-like figure in the White House will achieve this goal.
Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.
Surely making the election a referendum on foreign policy is the worst possible option for Hillary?
She's between a rock and a hard place on policy because if she says that Trump's protectionism will be bad for the economy she loses her left wing, yet this is precisely the position she needs to take to capture the centre.
Between Hillary and Trump:
Trump will be too busy tweeting all day to actually do any damage by governing. Hillary will be too busy doing damage by governing all day to do any tweeting.
The world can survive 4 years of Trump tweeting from the W.H., I don't think it can survive Hillary screaming to everyone to get her way for 4 years in the W.H.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Separate deal for Scotland - ranked 6th; Second referendum - ranked 9th;
Well that's the SNP's 'Summer of Independence' off to a roaring start.
Interestingly the answer to 'UK vs EU' or UK vs Single Market is (virtually) identical - 55 for UK....
It seems to have become accepted wisdom and conventional media narrative that the SNP vote both is pro-EU, pro-Independence, yet the poll yields;
2015 SNP Vote for SIndy: 65% (35% against or undecided) 2015 SNP Vote for EU not UK: 61% (39% against or undecided)
They do look very much like English Labour numbers with a very sizeable minority that do not fit the pro-Indy, pro-EU narrative.
Utter bollox PS: the poll I mean not your goodself.
In what way is a 1000+ base size poll 'utter bollox'?
One might form the impression that Nats were impervious to data and facts.....surely not?
you frothers hav espent months on here whinging about polls and ejaculating about how wrong they got everything and what rubbish they were. Suddenly one load of bollox that is against SNP is tablets of stone handed down from above. Get a grip.
Its information. Do you have different information. Or just the voices in your head?
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Reform (Re-form?)
Since they will be desperate:
Puppies and Kittens ? (question mark included in the name)
Every system that has an elite, is a system that needs to be replaced.
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes.
You can have meritocratic elites. These won't be caste systems.
The results of a meritocratic elite is still the same as any other elite. A small number of selfserving people secure in their positions will always have the same negative results, no matter what their merits.
A perfect example is a CEO in a company, even if he drives the company to the ground he will still be rewarded for his services with a golden parachute.
I don't think "secure in their positions" follows from "elite", at least not on an individual level. For example North Korea definitely has a powerful elite, but they're never sure when they're going to be executed with an anti-aircraft gun or stripped naked and fed to starving dogs.
As a factual question, it's also definitely not true that elites are always negative for the people they govern. For example, no government in history has created prosperity or reduced poverty like the current government of China, but it's definitely an elite - part meritocratic, part privileged children of former generals etc.
Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.
Surely making the election a referendum on foreign policy is the worst possible option for Hillary?
She's between a rock and a hard place on policy because if she says that Trump's protectionism will be bad for the economy she loses her left wing, yet this is precisely the position she needs to take to capture the centre.
Between Hillary and Trump:
Trump will be too busy tweeting all day to actually do any damage by governing. Hillary will be too busy doing damage by governing all day to do any tweeting.
The world can survive 4 years of Trump tweeting from the W.H., I don't think it can survive Hillary screaming to everyone to get her way for 4 years in the W.H.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Again it will be lost deposits galore.
It will be debatable if they would elect more MP's in the next GE than the LD have now, realistically they could end up with zero.
I have the distinct feeling that Paddy Ashdown is advising them, only he is such a disaster with political strategy (persuading the LD to select Clegg, going into coalition, sticking with the coalition, strategist on the AV referendum, strategist on the EU referendum, strategist of the 2015 GE LD campaign).
Comments
Don't think I've ever seen that before.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/labour-rebels-plan-to-elect-own-leader-and-create-alternative-gr/
"Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories."
It's another legal challenge they could not possibly win, same as the one earlier this week.
As I said a few days ago, those in the PLP responsible for organising this coup , who criticise Cobyn for his lack of organisational abilities need to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
I also think things have to be this way. The test for direct democracy is ancient Athens, and it fails dreadfully. You got effectively government by tabloid headline, leading to things like the killing of Socrates and the resolution to commit genocide at the Mitylene Debate in 427. (There is no scope by the way for saying that yebbut you have to look at prevailing moral standards in 427: the decision was so appalling that even the Athenians realised it was, and had a special remorse debate the following day to reverse their own decision). And that is what you would get now (have got now, the Remainers would say). We are therefore realistically stuck with a regime of oligarchy tempered by general elections. Adding a layer in between by primaries, or £3 leadership elections, adds a pointless element of uncertainty and tends to create huge pressure groups with too much power and not enough responsibility.
I'm not a Labour voter (never voted Tory either), but I thought Ed M would be an ok PM (a little crappy perhaps, like most PMs), and I really don't think Corbyn can appeal to enough to win a General Election - but the PLP's actions, the delayed challenges, the confused tactics, the rumoured legal maneuvering, it just makes me think they are emotionally not able to handle what is going on but are also too emotionally invested to leave, and so are now acting irrationally.
I don't say that lightly - I always try very hard to see the rationality behind the actions of others in politics, even where I vehemently disagree with it (people voting for Trump for instance I can understand even if I would never do so), but I'm really struggling with the PLP at the moment.
Part of the problem is tangential to the subject of Mr Herdson's piece - because the PLP obviously will not want to blame the voters for making their choices, but it feels like that is what the problem is, in that the selectorate keep making the 'wrong' choice, and they cannot face up to the fact they cannot seem to convince the selectorate of that, and are looking for a way to stay with those members while being honest that they don't think Corbyn is up to the job.
Plenty of oligarchies have been rotten to the core and failed their people (eg 18th century Poland and Venice).
You say Athens is an extreme case, but 1. there aren't that many cases to look at of direct democracy at the sovereign nation scale and 2. on paper Athens should have been an extreme on the upside: small, wealthy, cohesive, well-educated community so bloody good at moral and political philosophy that it produced Socrates and Plato. What happened next?
In Australia which shares a monarch with us only recently has the ALP allowed members to be consulted on its leader while the Liberal Party still elects its leader by MPs alone, the number of swift topplings by MPs of recent leaders and PMs is testament to that. Labour's problem is that it has no mechanism to remove a leader by vote of confidence by MPs as the Tories did when they replaced IDS with Michael Howard despite IDS, like Corbyn, having a clear mandate from party members
If they are wanting to drag the Party back to the right, then they need to accept that with the membership they have at the moment, it is not going to happen and they should either go and find themselves a new political home or form a new Party. That would not cause a major exodus of Labour MP's because a large number of the 172 are not really that right wing anyway (they are just not as far left as Corbyn)
If they are genuinely concerned that Corbyn is unelectable and a crap leader and that they have the survival of the Labour Party at heart, then they should publicly accept that the membership are in favour of the Party moving in a Corbynite direction and state that they will fully back someone who shares his views. It may be that that person is an MP who does not have all that much Parliamentary experience, but if he has leadership qualities that Corbyn is said to lack, then that person, with the full backing of the PLP can get experience on the job and make a fist of it.
Much of the talk around May's reshuffle was how brutal it was; I'm reading a biography of Richerd III at the moment and I wonder what he or his contemporaries would have thought...
The shadowy people around him can organise though; but mostly are interested in internal control of the party rather than anything more constructive in the way of parliamentary opposition.
The "Labour rebels" really want a kicking from voters of royal proportions.
But their actions are so stupid and desperate they are no longer a political threat, they are just a nuisance but an embarrassing nuisance till they lose their deposits in the next GE.
The thought that they can launch a legal challenge for the Labour Party name has the same chance as the legal challenge against Corbyn, perhaps even less, it shows how stupid they are.
But it will confirm the suspicion of everyone that the "rebels" are not "rebels" but are and always have been "traitors".
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/germany-pre-qualifying-2016.html
Because a formation of an elite means that the system has stagnated and has produced social stratification and castes.
In a political system that works and produces results, elites should not exist, only when it fails an elite appears.
It's not a coincidence that elitism in the west has risen to prominence in the last 10-15 years, along with western decline.
https://www.twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/685189087305822212
1. Some people are more capable than others, and they should rise.
2. Some people are more motivated than others, and those who aren't should be less involved.
The only problems are those of access and competition. Elites are both natural and necessary.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Part 2,391 ....
They tried tax cuts in the 80's believing all the nonsense about trickle down economics, when it failed and California went bankrupt due to low tax collection, they voted for a tax rise.
And don't tell me that it would not have happened at all if they never had allowed the people to vote.
In Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal did the same with the same result and was booted for a democrat (in the deep south! ) after their bankruptcy.
In both cases low taxes lead to a bankrupt state and where reversed, one by the public and another by a governor, 2 different systems, same course of events, same result.
Suez War, Winds of Change and all that.
Alas, the Ladbrokes winner market is off, but if you can find a traditional bookie with it, you may want to keep your eyes peeled.
When an Elite forms it means there is limited access and competition, as elites are selfserving cliques, and tend to be incompetent and indifferent due to the security of their position.
A perfect example is the Soviet Union and other eastern block countries, as the system stagnated an indifferent and incompetent party elite formed, which made reform impossible to succeed, the only way to replace them was revolution.
A successful system is the one that allows renewal of ideas and people, one that allows change to take place when it is necessary.
Elitism simply leads to a build up of problems and pressure for change until it bursts like the French Revolution.
https://twitter.com/F1/status/759315812628963328
Not sure a grid penalty's the right way to go, though. We'll see what happens.
If people have forgotten how to deal with it, the answer is not a return to feudalism that David Herdson proposes.
Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.
Surely making the election a referendum on foreign policy is the worst possible option for Hillary?
She's between a rock and a hard place on policy because if she says that Trump's protectionism will be bad for the economy she loses her left wing, yet this is precisely the position she needs to take to capture the centre.
A small number of selfserving people secure in their positions will always have the same negative results, no matter what their merits.
A perfect example is a CEO in a company, even if he drives the company to the ground he will still be rewarded for his services with a golden parachute.
As Clinton sets off on a three-day bus tour, she is struggling to connect with an economically anxious electorate: General-election polls show that voters, and by vast margins working-class whites, trust Trump more than Clinton to handle the economy...
Campaign officials say they have constantly heard from donors and outside advisers that their candidate needs to strip down her economic message. It's a challenge, they say, that weighs on them. “You don’t want to be, as the expression goes, bringing a calculator to a knife fight," said one senior Clinton adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity to frankly discuss the campaign strategy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/hillary-clinton-has-a-very-detailed-plan-for-the-economy-that-may-be-a-problem/
That worked well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset
It was intended that this would be the Russian word for "reset". Clinton explained that she wanted to reset relations between Russia and the United States. However, Lavrov explained to Clinton that "перегрузка" actually means "overcharge". The two pressed the button anyway.
Trump will be too busy tweeting all day to actually do any damage by governing.
Hillary will be too busy doing damage by governing all day to do any tweeting.
The world can survive 4 years of Trump tweeting from the W.H., I don't think it can survive Hillary screaming to everyone to get her way for 4 years in the W.H.
Reminder that over 3,000 migrants have died in the Mediterranean in 2016. 26k new arrivals to Europe in July alone https://t.co/fbY3VtfHsY
That said, this is also the forum where people who never in their whole lives have visited France openly support outcomes simply because they will "annoy the frogs", and are stoutly defended for their views, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
40% of lightweight (HDPE) shop plastic bags were used as bin liners. Heavyweight bags sold for the purpose as bin liners to replace the now absent lightweight shop bags are more harmful to the environment.
Substitute bags to carry shopping are not necessarily better for the environment. The substitute paper, LDPE, non-woven PP and cotton bags should be reused at least four, five, 14 and 173 times respectively to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than conventional HDPE carrier bags.
The paper bag has to be used four or more times to reduce its global warming potential
to below that of the conventional HDPE bag, but was significantly worse than the
conventional HDPE bag for human toxicity and terrestrial ecotoxicity due to the effect of paper production. However, it is unlikely the paper bag can be regularly reused the
required number of times due to its low durability.
The cotton bag has a greater impact than the conventional HDPE bag in seven of the
nine impact categories even when used 173 times (i.e. the number of uses required to
reduce the GWP of the cotton bag to that of the conventional HDPE bag with average
secondary reuse). The impact was considerably larger in categories such as acidification
and aquatic & terrestrial ecotoxicity due to the energy used to produce cotton yarn and
the fertilisers used during the growth of the cotton.
See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf
LA national tracking poll:
Trump 47 nc
Hillary 42 +1 (+2 since the start of the DNC)
Arizona, IWS (conducted completely after the DNC)
Trump 49
Hillary 41
Johnson 3
Stein 1
http://data.workwithiws.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/IWS-Arizona-POTUS-General.pdf
A group of protesters have just shut the Byron I was eating in on Shaftesbury Ave. by throwing a load of cockroaches into the restaurant.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/29/we-need-a-tough-negotiator-like-trump-to-fix-us-trade-policy-commentary.html
Here's the tragedy — and one that would never occur if an "art of the trade deal" Trump were in the Oval Office: All of our bad trade deals could have been good ones if we had simply bargained tougher. Safeguards going forward should include: (1) prompt triggers and automatic renegotiations if the trade gains are not distributed fairly, (2) equally prompt relief against NTBs, (3) ironclad sanctions against currency manipulation, (4) zero tolerance on intellectual property theft, and (5) stringent environmental and health and safety standards — without the proverbial "wiggle room" characterizing proposed deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit. When these two conditions are met, real world trade will converge with textbook theory, this country will be far more prosperous, and a now shattered faith in the global trading order will be restored. Only a Reagan or a Trump-like figure in the White House will achieve this goal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/byron-burger-insect-protest_uk_579b8b3ae4b0459aae5d73bc
Puppies and Kittens ? (question mark included in the name)
As a factual question, it's also definitely not true that elites are always negative for the people they govern. For example, no government in history has created prosperity or reduced poverty like the current government of China, but it's definitely an elite - part meritocratic, part privileged children of former generals etc.
It will be debatable if they would elect more MP's in the next GE than the LD have now, realistically they could end up with zero.
I have the distinct feeling that Paddy Ashdown is advising them, only he is such a disaster with political strategy (persuading the LD to select Clegg, going into coalition, sticking with the coalition, strategist on the AV referendum, strategist on the EU referendum, strategist of the 2015 GE LD campaign).