If Corbyn wins I don't think Labour MPs will defect but wait until an election defeat. If after an election defeat he is re-elected leader or another hard left candidate like McDonnell wins the leadership then there is a real prospect of moderate Labour MPs forming a new party with the LDs.
For the moment I can't see the LDs rising that much in the polls unless Brexit also leads to the UK leaving the Single Market too in which large numbers of moderate Tories and Labour voters who voted Remain may well move to the yellows
They may not have a choice. The boundary review, re-selections and de-selections will loom. Besides, while waiting for defeat is an option if you represent St Helens, it's more of a risk if you hold a seat that's currently marginal, or might be after the review.
It is far from certain that the new boundaries will be approved anyway. A good few Tories are likely to rebel - indeed a few did so in the last Parliament.
No chance of that this time, it'll be a full-blown three line whip for the Tories - with anyone personally affected offered a seat on the red benches if not enough retire in 2020.
Another related dilemma will be what to do with the redundant MEPs, 19 Tories I believe.
It was a thre line whip last time! I think there will be several Tory rebels from Wales alone.
It wasn't put to a vote last time, as the LDs flounced on their promise to support it when the AV referendum failed to deliver the 'right' result.
I would have thought that the Government whips will be working very hard to get this through, as the rebalancing is likely to favour them as a party at the next election, although it way well cost a couple of seats in Wales.
Expect a load of old duffers (Ken Clarke etc) to announce their retirement, and expect a few more to be suitably honoured with Knighthoods or Lordships for their service either before or after the election. I'm not personally a huge fan of this sort of patronage, but we have to take the world as it is and the whips will use all the levers they have available to get the boundary revisions through.
I assure you it was put to a vote and comfortably defeated!
Please link to a vote on approving the boundaries.
If Corbyn wins I don't think Labour MPs will defect but wait until an election defeat. If after an election defeat he is re-elected leader or another hard left candidate like McDonnell wins the leadership then there is a real prospect of moderate Labour MPs forming a new party with the LDs.
For the moment I can't see the LDs rising that much in the polls unless Brexit also leads to the UK leaving the Single Market too in which large numbers of moderate Tories and Labour voters who voted Remain may well move to the yellows
They may not have a choice. The boundary review, re-selections and de-selections will loom. Besides, while waiting for defeat is an option if you represent St Helens, it's more of a risk if you hold a seat that's currently marginal, or might be after the review.
It is far from certain that the new boundaries will be approved anyway. A good few Tories are likely to rebel - indeed a few did so in the last Parliament.
No chance of that this time, it'll be a full-blown three line whip for the Tories - with anyone personally affected offered a seat on the red benches if not enough retire in 2020.
Another related dilemma will be what to do with the redundant MEPs, 19 Tories I believe.
It was a thre line whip last time! I think there will be several Tory rebels from Wales alone.
It wasn't put to a vote last time, as the LDs flounced on their promise to support it when the AV referendum failed to deliver the 'right' result.
I would have thought that the Government whips will be working very hard to get this through, as the rebalancing is likely to favour them as a party at the next election, although it way well cost a couple of seats in Wales.
Expect a load of old duffers (Ken Clarke etc) to announce their retirement, and expect a few more to be suitably honoured with Knighthoods or Lordships for their service either before or after the election. I'm not personally a huge fan of this sort of patronage, but we have to take the world as it is and the whips will use all the levers they have available to get the boundary revisions through.
I assure you it was put to a vote and comfortably defeated!
Only four Tories voted against it (or actually, for the amendment): David Davis, Philip Davies, Richard Shepherd and John Baron.
But they were seen as Third Party candidates. At a by election a high profile Independent would probably benefit and be attractive to supporters of all parties - like Taverne at Lincoln.
Any Labour MPs deselected might be well advised to resign their seats and force a by election at the time. They would probably be well placed to hold on - Taverne style - and defeat the official Labour candidate selected to replace them.That might well be sufficient to secure their re-election in 2020.
Yes, there will be a few well liked MPs with good local profiles who should be able to see off a by-election. That route is preferable than standing independently at the GE where party labels influence the vote more.
I've always said though that any mass defection, whether it be to SDP2, LDs, Co-Op or whatever, needs to happen *before* the deselections start, otherwise it just looks like sour grapes from the incumbent MPs.
They would still have to fight the by election as Independent Labour or whatever, but if re-elected - as I would expect them to be - they would be well placed to win again in 2020. Moreover, if the boundary changes do go through deselection will not arise until 2019 - so that any consequential by elections will still be well remembered in May 2020.
MPs "personal votes" are rarely more than a few thousand. Those that resign then stand again are Turkeys voting for Christmas.
I refer you to the by elections at Lincoln - Clacton - Rochester & Strood. Also Labour Independents holding Blyth and Merthyr Tydfil.
Are any of those Labour MP's that personally popular in their seats?
Because if you are talking about cases like Tristram Hunt and Stephen Kinnock, local pitchforks are more likely than local votes.
Only four Tories voted against it (or actually, for the amendment): David Davis, Philip Davies, Richard Shepherd and John Baron.
Yes - but a few others abstained. Moreover it was widely expected that the proposals would fall due to LibDem opposition. It has been suggested that had that not been so there would have been more Tory rebels.
Looks like about three of those abstaining could be considered as MPs who might vote for it agin: Glyn Davies, Andrew Percy and Helen Grant. Two of these three+four noes are on the payroll, so that may keep them as abstentions.
If Corbyn wins I don't think Labour MPs will defect but wait until an election defeat. If after an election defeat he is re-elected leader or another hard left candidate like McDonnell wins the leadership then there is a real prospect of moderate Labour MPs forming a new party with the LDs.
For the moment I can't see the LDs rising that much in the polls unless Brexit also leads to the UK leaving the Single Market too in which large numbers of moderate Tories and Labour voters who voted Remain may well move to the yellows
They may not have a choice. The boundary review, re-selections and de-selections will loom. Besides, while waiting for defeat is an option if you represent St Helens, it's more of a risk if you hold a seat that's currently marginal, or might be after the review.
It is far from certain that the new boundaries will be approved anyway. A good few Tories are likely to rebel - indeed a few did so in the last Parliament.
No chance of that this time, it'll be a full-blown three line whip for the Tories - with anyone personally affected offered a seat on the red benches if not enough retire in 2020.
Another related dilemma will be what to do with the redundant MEPs, 19 Tories I believe.
It was a thre line whip last time! I think there will be several Tory rebels from Wales alone.
It wasn't put to a vote last time, as the LDs flounced on their promise to support it when the AV referendum failed to deliver the 'right' result.
I would have thought that the Government whips will be working very hard to get this through, as the rebalancing is likely to favour them as a party at the next election, although it way well cost a couple of seats in Wales.
Expect a load of old duffers (Ken Clarke etc) to announce their retirement, and expect a few more to be suitably honoured with Knighthoods or Lordships for their service either before or after the election. I'm not personally a huge fan of this sort of patronage, but we have to take the world as it is and the whips will use all the levers they have available to get the boundary revisions through.
I assure you it was put to a vote and comfortably defeated!
Please link to a vote on approving the boundaries.
If Corbyn wins I don't think Labour MPs will defect but wait until an election defeat. If after an election defeat he is re-elected leader or another hard left candidate like McDonnell wins the leadership then there is a real prospect of moderate Labour MPs forming a new party with the LDs.
For the moment I can't see the LDs rising that much in the polls unless Brexit also leads to the UK leaving the Single Market too in which large numbers of moderate Tories and Labour voters who voted Remain may well move to the yellows
They may not have a choice. The boundary review, re-selections and de-selections will loom. Besides, while waiting for defeat is an option if you represent St Helens, it's more of a risk if you hold a seat that's currently marginal, or might be after the review.
It is far from certain that the new boundaries will be approved anyway. A good few Tories are likely to rebel - indeed a few did so in the last Parliament.
No chance of that this time, it'll be a full-blown three line whip for the Tories - with anyone personally affected offered a seat on the red benches if not enough retire in 2020.
Another related dilemma will be what to do with the redundant MEPs, 19 Tories I believe.
It was a thre line whip last time! I think there will be several Tory rebels from Wales alone.
It wasn't put to a vote last time, as the LDs flounced on their promise to support it when the AV referendum failed to deliver the 'right' result.
I would have thought that the Government whips will be working very hard to get this through, as the rebalancing is likely to favour them as a party at the next election, although it way well cost a couple of seats in Wales.
Expect a load of old duffers (Ken Clarke etc) to announce their retirement, and expect a few more to be suitably honoured with Knighthoods or Lordships for their service either before or after the election. I'm not personally a huge fan of this sort of patronage, but we have to take the world as it is and the whips will use all the levers they have available to get the boundary revisions through.
I assure you it was put to a vote and comfortably defeated!
The boundaries were put to a vote? I know there was a vote to delay the implementation, but not one on the boundaries themselves.
If Corbyn wins I don't think Labour MPs will defect but wait until an election defeat. If after an election defeat he is re-elected leader or another hard left candidate like McDonnell wins the leadership then there is a real prospect of moderate Labour MPs forming a new party with the LDs.
For the moment I can't see the LDs rising that much in the polls unless Brexit also leads to the UK leaving the Single Market too in which large numbers of moderate Tories and Labour voters who voted Remain may well move to the yellows
They may not have a choice. The boundary review, re-selections and de-selections will loom. Besides, while waiting for defeat is an option if you represent St Helens, it's more of a risk if you hold a seat that's currently marginal, or might be after the review.
It is far from certain that the new boundaries will be approved anyway. A good few Tories are likely to rebel - indeed a few did so in the last Parliament.
No chance of that this time, it'll be a full-blown three line whip for the Tories - with anyone personally affected offered a seat on the red benches if not enough retire in 2020.
Another related dilemma will be what to do with the redundant MEPs, 19 Tories I believe.
It was a thre line whip last time! I think there will be several Tory rebels from Wales alone.
It wasn't put to a vote last time, as the LDs flounced on their promise to support it when the AV referendum failed to deliver the 'right' result.
I would have thought that the Government whips will be working very hard to get this through, as the rebalancing is likely to favour them as a party at the next election, although it way well cost a couple of seats in Wales.
Expect a load of old duffers (Ken Clarke etc) to announce their retirement, and expect a few more to be suitably honoured with Knighthoods or Lordships for their service either before or after the election. I'm not personally a huge fan of this sort of patronage, but we have to take the world as it is and the whips will use all the levers they have available to get the boundary revisions through.
I assure you it was put to a vote and comfortably defeated!
The boundaries were put to a vote? I know there was a vote to delay the implementation, but not one on the boundaries themselves.
But they were seen as Third Party candidates. At a by election a high profile Independent would probably benefit and be attractive to supporters of all parties - like Taverne at Lincoln.
Once again it hits the wall of Labour MP's not being local fits.
Most moderate Labour MP's are in safe Labour seats that are very left wing.
Carswell could manage because not only was he very popular in Clacton but because he defected to a right wing party in a very right wing seat.
Try running an independent moderate for a welsh valley seat, or an inner city one, or a N.Eastern one, they will get creamed by the left wing Labour candidate in those left wing seats.
I was detained by the Canadian border police yesterday, along with my son. Walked to the middle of a bridge that marks the boundary with the US, then came back having been invited to do so by some tourist information posted in the town we're staying in (Edmundston). Let's just say it's not encouraged these days. Apparently, if you cross the border even by a few inches you then have to proceed to the American border police. We didn't so caused an incident. The Americans are very strict on these things. Luckily, the Canadians are a bit more laid back and let us go after I showed them the offending material. "We'll have to do something about that," the policewoman said.
The Americans in Canada are notorious - I've only ever had border issues twice in my life: both in Toronto crossing to the US
Oh shit, gone to get my ticket for tomorrow and the server has gone into meltdown....
Did you get your ticket?
Yes..finally.....was stuck in a queue for 30 mins. £16, bargain....plus of course probably £10 on parking etc etc etc...
Looks like it will be a great day for cricket. Sunshine forecast and match evenly poised. I guess now that we declare after a quick fire few overs in the morning that gets Bairstow a ton and a lead of around 350.
But they were seen as Third Party candidates. At a by election a high profile Independent would probably benefit and be attractive to supporters of all parties - like Taverne at Lincoln.
Once again it hits the wall of Labour MP's not being local fits.
Most moderate Labour MP's are in safe Labour seats that are very left wing.
Carswell could manage because not only was he very popular in Clacton but because he defected to a right wing party in a very right wing seat.
Try running an independent moderate for a welsh valley seat, or an inner city one, or a N.Eastern one, they will get creamed by the left wing Labour candidate in those left wing seats.
But they were seen as Third Party candidates. At a by election a high profile Independent would probably benefit and be attractive to supporters of all parties - like Taverne at Lincoln.
Once again it hits the wall of Labour MP's not being local fits.
Most moderate Labour MP's are in safe Labour seats that are very left wing.
Carswell could manage because not only was he very popular in Clacton but because he defected to a right wing party in a very right wing seat.
Try running an independent moderate for a welsh valley seat, or an inner city one, or a N.Eastern one, they will get creamed by the left wing Labour candidate in those left wing seats.
Taverne smashed both the Labour and Tory candidates at his by election in March 1973. If anything personal votes have tended to become more important since that time. If the resigning MP is perceived as fighting an extremist Corbynite candidate - which is how the media is likely to present such a contest - he/she will win comfortably imho.
There COULDN'T be a vote on the new boundaries in 2012 as the Boundary Commissions had not issued their reports - so there were no new boundaries to vote on.
What happened was that an amendment to the Electoral Registration Act was moved in the Lords to delay the Boundary Commissions issuing their reports until September 2018. That amendment was passed by the Lords. It was then accepted by a vote in the Commons - as per the link posted below.
So it is now the LAW that the Boundary Commissions have to issue their next reports in the month of September 2018. Note they CANNOT issue them earlier even if they finish their work earlier.
Clearly Parliament can't actually vote on new boundaries until the Boundary Commissions have formally issued their reports.
I would have liked to have commented earlier on David's piece but Saturday is the day I spend with Mr Stodge Senior and that's how it is.
David's piece is fair - I don't agree with all of it but it's well argued. Nobody I speak to in the party is under the slightest illusion this is going to be a long haul with setbacks along the way but the overall mood is much more positive than 12 months ago.
The recovery in activity is patchy and not always where you would expect - as an example, there is a vibrant LD branch in East London made up of post-2015 GE members who lack nothing in enthusiasm and effort. The old familiar areas are coming back too slowly but it's a task to reconnect with the many voters the Party lost from 2010-15.
I do think the Coalition years and the Coalition Experience for the party are still being evaluated. I'm increasingly of the view that the Coalition was less about what it did (which in all honesty wasn't all that much and nothing the radical Governments of 1945 and 1983) but what it represented in terms of continuity and stability at a time of financial and political uncertainty and chaos otherwise.
That Britain unquestionably benefited from stable Government from 2010-15 is undeniable - that the Coalition achieved all it could have is debatable.
Tim starts from where Paddy did in 1988 - a darling of the activists with a proven local campaigning record and little or no actual involvement in what went before. Ex-ministers like Norman Lamb had, if you like, the smell of the Coalition about them and after the 2015 GE that was the last thing anyone wanted.
Tim, like Paddy, lacks nothing in energy and commitment and has also recognised the LDs need to be recognised as having a USP which differentiates them from Conservatives and Labour but which has a cross-spectrum attraction hence the pro-EU "48%" motif.
The problem is twofold - one, the policy hasn't been debated within the party (it will be at Conference next month) and second, and this needs emphasising for the lazy thinkers on the Right on here, the notion the LDs are completely pro-EU is and always been a nonsense.
There always has been a sceptical minority and that has grown with Brexit - the notion we can return to the EU on the same terms we rejected in June is absurd but the thought we could carry the country on a platform of the Euro and Schengen is no less daft.
The other aspect to this is that once the Boundary Commissions issue their reports they are laid before Parliament as a Statutory Instrument.
In order to be introduced, that Statutory Instrument must be accepted by votes in both the Commons AND THE LORDS.
Note that if the vote does not pass I THINK it is possible to put the SI to a vote again - though there may be a requirement to change it in some respect. That shouldn't be an issue - eg they could just make a trivial change to a constituency name.
@stodge, that's very interesting. Who is the most senior Lib Dem in favour of Brexit? I am in no doubt that the grass routes are not unanimously in favour of our EU membership, but I'm struggling to think of any Lib Dem who wanted us to leave.
The shape of politics in 5 years time? Labour splits and moderates form the Progressives with the LDs and rightwing Tories join with Carswellite UKIP in Freedom Party or Woolfite/Nuttall UKIP in Patriots Party https://twitter.com/montie/status/761940870568509441
The LDs are and always have been an internationalist party but that has been submerged in the public consciousness to what has been characterised and caricatured as Europhilia when it was the notion that a united European approach to regional and even global problems was or could be the way forward.
Brexit compels us to look beyond Europe and establish or re-establish the collaborative relationships we once enjoyed across the world. It won't be easy but an outward-looking internationalist viewpoint is surely preferable to narrow insular nationalism.
The problem with this laudable aim is it bumps up against the reality of immigration and the unpalatable truth a lot of people in this country want fewer or ideally no more immigrants and wouldn't object to the compulsory repatriation of certain groups already here (plenty have been demonised already, take your pick).
In politics, however, rhetoric and reality don't always rub along that well. One could argue sustaining the pensions triple lock is wrong but the Tories need the pensioners' votes and the 1990s taught them you don't antagonise the pensioners because if they a) stop voting for you and b) start voting for someone else, you're stuffed. Google Norman Lamont and VAT on fuel if you don't believe me.
So there's the world you'd like and the world you live in. We want to be outward-looking, collaborative and internationalist in outlook but we don't want the world beating a path to our door (unless they are tourists or investors) and wanting to live here may seem contradictory and absurd but it is in effect where Brexit has left us. To be fair, it works for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US and other countries.
As a liberal and an internationalist, I've found coming to terms with and rationalising the contradiction far from easy but if democracy is first and foremost about recognising the will of the people, then all parties need to recognise the immigration and assimilation model under which we have operated since the 1960s has failed and especially so since 2004.
Liberals have to realise that illiberal notions are not simply to be condemned out of hand - sometimes the illiberal is valid and indeed the only way forward in a world of finite space and resources.
Taverne smashed both the Labour and Tory candidates at his by election in March 1973. If anything personal votes have tended to become more important since that time. If the resigning MP is perceived as fighting an extremist Corbynite candidate - which is how the media is likely to present such a contest - he/she will win comfortably imho.
Why the Taverne example cannot be used this time:
1. Lincoln is a long term marginal, not a safe Labour seat. 2. Taverne was deselected because he was an EEC enthusiast. 3. His seat also voted heavily for the EEC in the 1975 referendum, so his main policy matched. 4. He was personally popular:
"Through 1972 the left gained further ground in the local party and in June they made another move. Taverne organised an opinion poll in the Lincoln constituency which found that 71% said he was right to have voted in accordance with his own views rather than those of his local party, and 79% approved of him as their MP."
@stodge, that's very interesting. Who is the most senior Lib Dem in favour of Brexit? I am in no doubt that the grass routes are not unanimously in favour of our EU membership, but I'm struggling to think of any Lib Dem who wanted us to leave.
There was a Lib Dem for Leave campaign albeit on a small scale. The fact is around 25-30% if our meagre 2015 GE vote was for LEAVE - I was one of them.
#BREAKING: 2 Belgian police officers wounded in #machete attack, assailant shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ https://t.co/QyRMSFQs4f #Belgium
The mental illness epidemic continues
Islam = mental illness is not the conclusion people should be drawing.
I think someone was being sarcastic. Radical Islam is certainly a mental Illness. At least if it isn't how would you describe it?
You added the word radical.
There is no difference - the source is the same - it is just how you interpret it. So far no one has really produced an effective counter pointing out where Radical Islam is in Breach of the Koran and arguing against the proponents of radical islam - and that is what worries me.
@stodge, that's very interesting. Who is the most senior Lib Dem in favour of Brexit? I am in no doubt that the grass routes are not unanimously in favour of our EU membership, but I'm struggling to think of any Lib Dem who wanted us to leave.
Lord Harvey, formed LD MP for North Devon and a Defence Minister was a Eurosceptic for a long-time and John Cleese was the LD's most prominent celebrity backer for a while and backed Leave
The LDs are and always have been an internationalist party but that has been submerged in the public consciousness to what has been characterised and caricatured as Europhilia when it was the notion that a united European approach to regional and even global problems was or could be the way forward.
Brexit compels us to look beyond Europe and establish or re-establish the collaborative relationships we once enjoyed across the world. It won't be easy but an outward-looking internationalist viewpoint is surely preferable to narrow insular nationalism.
The problem with this laudable aim is it bumps up against the reality of immigration and the unpalatable truth a lot of people in this country want fewer or ideally no more immigrants and wouldn't object to the compulsory repatriation of certain groups already here (plenty have been demonised already, take your pick).
So there's the world you'd like and the world you live in. We want to be outward-looking, collaborative and internationalist in outlook but we don't want the world beating a path to our door (unless they are tourists or investors) and wanting to live here may seem contradictory and absurd but it is in effect where Brexit has left us. To be fair, it works for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US and other countries.
As a liberal and an internationalist, I've found coming to terms with and rationalising the contradiction far from easy but if democracy is first and foremost about recognising the will of the people, then all parties need to recognise the immigration and assimilation model under which we have operated since the 1960s has failed and especially so since 2004.
Liberals have to realise that illiberal notions are not simply to be condemned out of hand - sometimes the illiberal is valid and indeed the only way forward in a world of finite space and resources.
If you look at the TUC post EU-ref polling it doesn't support your contention that people want either deportations or no immigration. Support for immigration (e.g. refugees) rises across all groups when coupled with a system whereby the UK controls who enters.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
'There always has been a sceptical minority and that has grown with Brexit - the notion we can return to the EU on the same terms we rejected in June is absurd but the thought we could carry the country on a platform of the Euro and Schengen is no less daft.'
Agree, that would be a hard sell to the 20% or so euro fanatics.
@stodge, that's very interesting. Who is the most senior Lib Dem in favour of Brexit? I am in no doubt that the grass routes are not unanimously in favour of our EU membership, but I'm struggling to think of any Lib Dem who wanted us to leave.
There was a Lib Dem for Leave campaign albeit on a small scale. The fact is around 25-30% if our meagre 2015 GE vote was for LEAVE - I was one of them.
But how much power do they have in the party? As an outsider I can only base my view of the Lib Dems on what their senior politicians say and do. Your comment in part 2 about liberals needing to take stock of the situation and reevaluate their approach is a very rational one. Since June 23, however, all I've heard from Farron (and many in Labour, to be fair) is how terrible the leave vote was. Quite how it will play out is unclear, but I don't give you Brexiteers in the Lib Dems much chance of getting a fair hearing from the top of the party.
The LDs are and always have been an internationalist party but that has been submerged in the public consciousness to what has been characterised and caricatured as Europhilia when it was the notion that a united European approach to regional and even global problems was or could be the way forward.
Brexit compels us to look beyond Europe and establish or re-establish the collaborative relationships we once enjoyed across the world. It won't be easy but an outward-looking internationalist viewpoint is surely preferable to narrow insular nationalism.
The problem with this laudable aim is it bumps up against the reality of immigration and the unpalatable truth a lot of people in this country want fewer or ideally no more immigrants and wouldn't object to the compulsory repatriation of certain groups already here (plenty have been demonised already, take your pick).
So there's the world you'd like and the world you live in. We want to be outward-looking, collaborative and internationalist in outlook but we don't want the world beating a path to our door (unless they are tourists or investors) and wanting to live here may seem contradictory and absurd but it is in effect where Brexit has left us. To be fair, it works for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US and other countries.
As a liberal and an internationalist, I've found coming to terms with and rationalising the contradiction far from easy but if democracy is first and foremost about recognising the will of the people, then all parties need to recognise the immigration and assimilation model under which we have operated since the 1960s has failed and especially so since 2004.
Liberals have to realise that illiberal notions are not simply to be condemned out of hand - sometimes the illiberal is valid and indeed the only way forward in a world of finite space and resources.
If you look at the TUC post EU-ref polling it doesn't support your contention that people want either deportations or no immigration. Support for immigration (e.g. refugees) rises across all groups when coupled with a system whereby the UK controls who enters.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
Most UK voters are pretty moderate. Some of the people in charge are pro-immigration religious fundamentalists.
'There always has been a sceptical minority and that has grown with Brexit - the notion we can return to the EU on the same terms we rejected in June is absurd but the thought we could carry the country on a platform of the Euro and Schengen is no less daft.'
Agree, that would be a hard sell to the 20% or so euro fanatics.
David Steel running for MEP in Italy in the 1989 euros was the peak of absurdity of liberal internationalism.
@stodge, that's very interesting. Who is the most senior Lib Dem in favour of Brexit? I am in no doubt that the grass routes are not unanimously in favour of our EU membership, but I'm struggling to think of any Lib Dem who wanted us to leave.
There was a Lib Dem for Leave campaign albeit on a small scale. The fact is around 25-30% if our meagre 2015 GE vote was for LEAVE - I was one of them.
But how much power do they have in the party? As an outsider I can only base my view of the Lib Dems on what their senior politicians say and do. Your comment in part 2 about liberals needing to take stock of the situation and reevaluate their approach is a very rational one. Since June 23, however, all I've heard from Farron (and many in Labour, to be fair) is how terrible the leave vote was. Quite how it will play out is unclear, but I don't give you Brexiteers in the Lib Dems much chance of getting a fair hearing from the top of the party.
It is a democratic party and the conference debate and vote taken very seriously. I was a Remainer, but a policy of re-entry is not going to fly, but an EEA type agreement that maintains much of the EU freedoms and structures is quite a sellable policy and permits a few sops "British Sausage" like!
'There always has been a sceptical minority and that has grown with Brexit - the notion we can return to the EU on the same terms we rejected in June is absurd but the thought we could carry the country on a platform of the Euro and Schengen is no less daft.'
Agree, that would be a hard sell to the 20% or so euro fanatics.
David Steel running for MEP in Italy in the 1989 euros was the peak of absurdity of liberal internationalism.
@stodge, that's very interesting. Who is the most senior Lib Dem in favour of Brexit? I am in no doubt that the grass routes are not unanimously in favour of our EU membership, but I'm struggling to think of any Lib Dem who wanted us to leave.
There was a Lib Dem for Leave campaign albeit on a small scale. The fact is around 25-30% if our meagre 2015 GE vote was for LEAVE - I was one of them.
But how much power do they have in the party? As an outsider I can only base my view of the Lib Dems on what their senior politicians say and do. Your comment in part 2 about liberals needing to take stock of the situation and reevaluate their approach is a very rational one. Since June 23, however, all I've heard from Farron (and many in Labour, to be fair) is how terrible the leave vote was. Quite how it will play out is unclear, but I don't give you Brexiteers in the Lib Dems much chance of getting a fair hearing from the top of the party.
Dunno; think Farron et al were/are right. Brexit is causing, and it going to cause all sorts of “down the line” problems in, for example, science and medicine.
The LDs are and always have been an internationalist party but that has been submerged in the public consciousness to what has been characterised and caricatured as Europhilia when it was the notion that a united European approach to regional and even global problems was or could be the way forward.
Brexit compels us to look beyond Europe and establish or re-establish the collaborative relationships we once enjoyed across the world. It won't be easy but an outward-looking internationalist viewpoint is surely preferable to narrow insular nationalism.
The problem with this laudable aim is it bumps up against the reality of immigration and the unpalatable truth a lot of people in this country want fewer or ideally no more immigrants and wouldn't object to the compulsory repatriation of certain groups already here (plenty have been demonised already, take your pick)
: :
As a liberal and an internationalist, I've found coming to terms with and rationalising the contradiction far from easy but if democracy is first and foremost about recognising the will of the people, then all parties need to recognise the immigration and assimilation model under which we have operated since the 1960s has failed and especially so since 2004.
Liberals have to realise that illiberal notions are not simply to be condemned out of hand - sometimes the illiberal is valid and indeed the only way forward in a world of finite space and resources.
If you look at the TUC post EU-ref polling it doesn't support your contention that people want either deportations or no immigration. Support for immigration (e.g. refugees) rises across all groups when coupled with a system whereby the UK controls who enters.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
It depends how you define illiberal - some people think that
1) Any kind of restraint on immigration is illiberal 2) Any deportation of anyone for any reason is illiberal 3) advocating any kind of restraint or deportation for any reason is illiberal
A quota based system - based on actual skill gaps in the UK - would be extremely popular, from what I have seen. It has been interesting to hear that such a system would be unworkable fascism, from some quarters.
The LDs are and always have been an internationalist party but that has been submerged in the public consciousness to what has been characterised and caricatured as Europhilia when it was the notion that a united European approach to regional and even global problems was or could be the way forward.
Brexit compels us to look beyond Europe and establish or re-establish the collaborative relationships we once enjoyed across the world. It won't be easy but an outward-looking internationalist viewpoint is surely preferable to narrow insular nationalism.
The problem with this laudable aim is it bumps up against the reality of immigration and the unpalatable truth a lot of people in this country want fewer or ideally no more immigrants and wouldn't object to the compulsory repatriation of certain groups already here (plenty have been demonised already, take your pick)
: :
As a liberal and an internationalist, I've found coming to terms with and rationalising the contradiction far from easy but if democracy is first and foremost about recognising the will of the people, then all parties need to recognise the immigration and assimilation model under which we have operated since the 1960s has failed and especially so since 2004.
Liberals have to realise that illiberal notions are not simply to be condemned out of hand - sometimes the illiberal is valid and indeed the only way forward in a world of finite space and resources.
If you look at the TUC post EU-ref polling it doesn't support your contention that people want either deportations or no immigration. Support for immigration (e.g. refugees) rises across all groups when coupled with a system whereby the UK controls who enters.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
It depends how you define illiberal - some people think that
1) Any kind of restraint on immigration is illiberal 2) Any deportation of anyone for any reason is illiberal 3) advocating any kind of restraint or deportation for any reason is illiberal
A quota based system - based on actual skill gaps in the UK - would be extremely popular, from what I have seen. It has been interesting to hear that such a system would be unworkable fascism, from some quarters.
Silly (probably) question. How would a scheme like this apply to footballers, bearing in mind that some want an overall limit. Especially if we were near our annual limit
The LDs are and always have been an internationalist party but that has been submerged in the public consciousness to what has been characterised and caricatured as Europhilia when it was the notion that a united European approach to regional and even global problems was or could be the way forward.
Brexit compels us to look beyond Europe and establish or re-establish the collaborative relationships we once enjoyed across the world. It won't be easy but an outward-looking internationalist viewpoint is surely preferable to narrow insular nationalism.
The problem with this laudable aim is it bumps up against the reality of immigration and the unpalatable truth a lot of people in this country want fewer or ideally no more immigrants and wouldn't object to the compulsory repatriation of certain groups already here (plenty have been demonised already, take your pick)
: :
As a liberal and an internationalist, I've found coming to terms with and rationalising the contradiction far from easy but if democracy is first and foremost about recognising the will of the people, then all parties need to recognise the immigration and assimilation model under which we have operated since the 1960s has failed and especially so since 2004.
Liberals have to realise that illiberal notions are not simply to be condemned out of hand - sometimes the illiberal is valid and indeed the only way forward in a world of finite space and resources.
If you look at the TUC post EU-ref polling it doesn't support your contention that people want either deportations or no immigration. Support for immigration (e.g. refugees) rises across all groups when coupled with a system whereby the UK controls who enters.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
It depends how you define illiberal - some people think that
1) Any kind of restraint on immigration is illiberal 2) Any deportation of anyone for any reason is illiberal 3) advocating any kind of restraint or deportation for any reason is illiberal
A quota based system - based on actual skill gaps in the UK - would be extremely popular, from what I have seen. It has been interesting to hear that such a system would be unworkable fascism, from some quarters.
Let's not mince words. People who believe any permutation of 1-3 are idiots and should not be let anywhere the levers of power.
@stodge, that's very interesting. Who is the most senior Lib Dem in favour of Brexit? I am in no doubt that the grass routes are not unanimously in favour of our EU membership, but I'm struggling to think of any Lib Dem who wanted us to leave.
There was a Lib Dem for Leave campaign albeit on a small scale. The fact is around 25-30% if our meagre 2015 GE vote was for LEAVE - I was one of them.
But how much power do they have in the party? As an outsider I can only base my view of the Lib Dems on what their senior politicians say and do. Your comment in part 2 about liberals needing to take stock of the situation and reevaluate their approach is a very rational one. Since June 23, however, all I've heard from Farron (and many in Labour, to be fair) is how terrible the leave vote was. Quite how it will play out is unclear, but I don't give you Brexiteers in the Lib Dems much chance of getting a fair hearing from the top of the party.
Most people who call themselves liberals today loathe nations, regarding them as quasi-fascist entities that stand in the way of enlightened supranational government
Yet, throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries, liberals thought nations were good things.
The LDs are and always have been an internationalist party but that has been submerged in the public consciousness to what has been characterised and caricatured as Europhilia when it was the notion that a united European approach to regional and even global problems was or could be the way forward.
Brexit compels us to look beyond Europe and establish or re-establish the collaborative relationships we once enjoyed across the world. It won't be easy but an outward-looking internationalist viewpoint is surely preferable to narrow insular nationalism.
The problem with this laudable aim is it bumps up against the reality of immigration and the unpalatable truth a lot of people in this country want fewer or ideally no more immigrants and wouldn't object to the compulsory repatriation of certain groups already here (plenty have been demonised already, take your pick)
Liberals have to realise that illiberal notions are not simply to be condemned out of hand - sometimes the illiberal is valid and indeed the only way forward in a world of finite space and resources.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
It depends how you define illiberal - some people think that
1) Any kind of restraint on immigration is illiberal 2) Any deportation of anyone for any reason is illiberal 3) advocating any kind of restraint or deportation for any reason is illiberal
A quota based system - based on actual skill gaps in the UK - would be extremely popular, from what I have seen. It has been interesting to hear that such a system would be unworkable fascism, from some quarters.
Silly (probably) question. How would a scheme like this apply to footballers, bearing in mind that some want an overall limit. Especially if we were near our annual limit
If you look at our current visa schemes, some are quota based (e.g. and very stupidly our exceptional talent scheme) and others not - like the sporting and creative scheme. There is a specific elite sportsperson scheme that allows 3 years of residence. It takes about 3 weeks to process.
Generally, we shouldn't have an issue with any permutation of (smart, well-paid, rich) entering the country.
@stodge, that's very interesting. Who is the most senior Lib Dem in favour of Brexit? I am in no doubt that the grass routes are not unanimously in favour of our EU membership, but I'm struggling to think of any Lib Dem who wanted us to leave.
There was a Lib Dem for Leave campaign albeit on a small scale. The fact is around 25-30% if our meagre 2015 GE vote was for LEAVE - I was one of them.
But how much power do they have in the party? As an outsider I can only base my view of the Lib Dems on what their senior politicians say and do. Your comment in part 2 about liberals needing to take stock of the situation and reevaluate their approach is a very rational one. Since June 23, however, all I've heard from Farron (and many in Labour, to be fair) is how terrible the leave vote was. Quite how it will play out is unclear, but I don't give you Brexiteers in the Lib Dems much chance of getting a fair hearing from the top of the party.
Most people who call themselves liberals today loathe nations, regarding them as quasi-fascist entities that stand in the way of enlightened supranational government
Yet, throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries, liberals thought nations were good things.
I was very stuck by a conversation I had with @corporeal a few years ago - he talked about liberalism being 'rights given to citizens by the State'.
I was appalled, and yet simultaneously it made complete sense.
If I understand this right - that's the Napoleonic view of law - where everything is illegal unless sanctioned, whereas we're the everything is legal until told otherwise end of the spectrum in the UK.
@stodge, that's very interesting. Who is the most senior Lib Dem in favour of Brexit? I am in no doubt that the grass routes are not unanimously in favour of our EU membership, but I'm struggling to think of any Lib Dem who wanted us to leave.
There was a Lib Dem for Leave campaign albeit on a small scale. The fact is around 25-30% if our meagre 2015 GE vote was for LEAVE - I was one of them.
But how much power do they have in the party? As an outsider I can only base my view of the Lib Dems on what their senior politicians say and do. Your comment in part 2 about liberals needing to take stock of the situation and reevaluate their approach is a very rational one. Since June 23, however, all I've heard from Farron (and many in Labour, to be fair) is how terrible the leave vote was. Quite how it will play out is unclear, but I don't give you Brexiteers in the Lib Dems much chance of getting a fair hearing from the top of the party.
Most people who call themselves liberals today loathe nations, regarding them as quasi-fascist entities that stand in the way of enlightened supranational government
Yet, throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries, liberals thought nations were good things.
I was very stuck by a conversation I had with @corporeal a few years ago - he talked about liberalism being 'rights given to citizens by the State'.
I was appalled, and yet simultaneously it made complete sense.
If I understand this right - that's the Napoleonic view of law - where everything is illegal unless sanctioned, whereas we're the everything is legal until told otherwise end of the spectrum in the UK.
The old joke about the difference between Britain, Germany and Switzerland:
In Britain, everything is permitted unless prohibited In Germany, everything is prohibited unless permitted In Switzerland, everything that is not prohibited is mandatory.
Most people who call themselves liberals today loathe nations, regarding them as quasi-fascist entities that stand in the way of enlightened supranational government
Yet, throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries, liberals thought nations were good things.
No, Sean, that's sloppy, weak-minded nonsense and unworthy of you. I've never met a liberal who "loathes nations" or who sees them as "quasi fascist".
Unlike the UKIP view of the world, liberals see co-operation and collaboration between nations and supranational groupings as a positive. Whether through the UN, NATO or other groups, Britain has much to offer the world but undoubtedly groups like NATO benefit from a pooling of sovereignty and a collective willingness to defend the organisation's core principles.
Taverne smashed both the Labour and Tory candidates at his by election in March 1973. If anything personal votes have tended to become more important since that time. If the resigning MP is perceived as fighting an extremist Corbynite candidate - which is how the media is likely to present such a contest - he/she will win comfortably imho.
Why the Taverne example cannot be used this time:
1. Lincoln is a long term marginal, not a safe Labour seat. 2. Taverne was deselected because he was an EEC enthusiast. 3. His seat also voted heavily for the EEC in the 1975 referendum, so his main policy matched. 4. He was personally popular:
"Through 1972 the left gained further ground in the local party and in June they made another move. Taverne organised an opinion poll in the Lincoln constituency which found that 71% said he was right to have voted in accordance with his own views rather than those of his local party, and 79% approved of him as their MP."
5. In the end Taverne lost his seat in the GE, 18 months later.
Now give me a moderate Labour MP that can pass the first 4 tests, (even Taverne failed at the fifth one).
Lincoln was not seen as a marginal at that time. It had been Labour-held since World War 2 and did not fall to the Tories until 1979. The EEC was nothing like as popular in 1972/73 as the June 1975 Referendum result might have implied - when the entire UK mainland voted strongly in favour of continued membership. Taverne did actually retain his seat at the following General Election in February 1974 - but narrowly lost to Margaret Beckett in October that year..
If you look at the TUC post EU-ref polling it doesn't support your contention that people want either deportations or no immigration. Support for immigration (e.g. refugees) rises across all groups when coupled with a system whereby the UK controls who enters.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
People are not going to tell pollsters the unacceptable but if you believe there is no one who would a) willingly support the deportation of all East Europeans or b) willingly support the deportation of all Muslims I put it to you are naive and foolish.
I don't query the popularity and indeed the benefit of a quota or points based system and I'm sure that's where we will finish up albeit with some tweaks and changes.
The idea that the UK is some kind of liberal citadel needs to be laid to rest.
As a liberal and an internationalist, I've found coming to terms with and rationalising the contradiction far from easy but if democracy is first and foremost about recognising the will of the people, then all parties need to recognise the immigration and assimilation model under which we have operated since the 1960s has failed and especially so since 2004.
Liberals have to realise that illiberal notions are not simply to be condemned out of hand - sometimes the illiberal is valid and indeed the only way forward in a world of finite space and resources.
If you look at the TUC post EU-ref polling it doesn't support your contention that people want either deportations or no immigration. Support for immigration (e.g. refugees) rises across all groups when coupled with a system whereby the UK controls who enters.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
It depends how you define illiberal - some people think that
1) Any kind of restraint on immigration is illiberal 2) Any deportation of anyone for any reason is illiberal 3) advocating any kind of restraint or deportation for any reason is illiberal
A quota based system - based on actual skill gaps in the UK - would be extremely popular, from what I have seen. It has been interesting to hear that such a system would be unworkable fascism, from some quarters.
Silly (probably) question. How would a scheme like this apply to footballers, bearing in mind that some want an overall limit. Especially if we were near our annual limit
Anyone with a job offer at the higher income tax rate should be allowed a visa - they're going to be net financial contributors if they're earning more than £50k a year.
'It depends how you define illiberal - some people think that
1) Any kind of restraint on immigration is illiberal 2) Any deportation of anyone for any reason is illiberal 3) advocating any kind of restraint or deportation for any reason is illiberal
A quota based system - based on actual skill gaps in the UK - would be extremely popular, from what I have seen. It has been interesting to hear that such a system would be unworkable fascism, from some quarters.
Let's not mince words. People who believe any permutation of 1-3 are idiots and should not be let anywhere the levers of power.'
I remember a TV documentary about prisons when the then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten suggested that we should close all prisons as they didn't work.
Don't whether he really believed it or was just trying to impress how liberal he was.
'The other aspect to this is that once the Boundary Commissions issue their reports they are laid before Parliament as a Statutory Instrument.
In order to be introduced, that Statutory Instrument must be accepted by votes in both the Commons AND THE LORDS.'
Can't imagine the LORDS would be dumb enough to block it.
Many in the Lords might argue that reducing the size of the elected House effectively increases the power of the Executive in relation to the Legislature.
If you look at the TUC post EU-ref polling it doesn't support your contention that people want either deportations or no immigration. Support for immigration (e.g. refugees) rises across all groups when coupled with a system whereby the UK controls who enters.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
People are not going to tell pollsters the unacceptable but if you believe there is no one who would a) willingly support the deportation of all East Europeans or b) willingly support the deportation of all Muslims I put it to you are naive and foolish.
I don't query the popularity and indeed the benefit of a quota or points based system and I'm sure that's where we will finish up albeit with some tweaks and changes.
The idea that the UK is some kind of liberal citadel needs to be laid to rest.
What a ludicrous straw man argument. With a couple of insults thrown in. Classy.
In a country with 65 million people there are going to be those who believe almost anything. It's rule 34, but applied generally. Some people undoubtedly would like to put the clock back, deport the muslims, kick out the Poles, shoot the Roma and so on. Those people are a very small minority.
We function quite well in this country, despite it containing fruitcakes of all types. Holocaust deniers. Flat earthers. Conspiracy theorists. To attempt to extend extreme views to the moderate, sensible majority of voters is daft.
The LDs are and always have been an internationalist party but that has been submerged in the public consciousness to what has been characterised and caricatured as Europhilia when it was the notion that a united European approach to regional and even global problems was or could be the way forward.
Brexit compels us to look beyond Europe .... It won't be easy but an outward-looking internationalist viewpoint is surely preferable to narrow insular nationalism.
The problem with this laudable aim is it bumps up against the reality of immigration and the unpalatable truth a lot of people in this country want fewer or ideally no more immigrants and wouldn't object to the compulsory repatriation of certain groups already here (plenty have been demonised already, take your pick)
: :
As a liberal and an internationalist, I've found coming to terms with and rationalising the contradiction far from easy but if democracy is first and foremost about recognising the will of the people, then all parties need to recognise the immigration and assimilation model under which we have operated since the 1960s has failed and especially so since 2004.
Liberals have to realise that illiberal notions are not simply to be condemned out of hand - sometimes the illiberal is valid and indeed the only way forward in a world of finite space and resources.
If you look at the TUC post EU-ref polling it doesn't support your contention that people want either deportations or no immigration. Support for immigration (e.g. refugees) rises across all groups when coupled with a system whereby the UK controls who enters.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
It depends how you define illiberal - some people think that
1) Any kind of restraint on immigration is illiberal 2) Any deportation of anyone for any reason is illiberal 3) advocating any kind of restraint or deportation for any reason is illiberal
A quota based system - based on actual skill gaps in the UK - would be extremely popular, from what I have seen. It has been interesting to hear that such a system would be unworkable fascism, from some quarters.
Let's not mince words. People who believe any permutation of 1-3 are idiots and should not be let anywhere the levers of power.
Can't imagine the LORDS would be dumb enough to block it.
'Many in the Lords might argue that reducing the size of the elected House effectively increases the power of the Executive in relation to the Legislature.'
They may be a bit old & slow in the HoL but even they might recognize that reducing the size of the HoC was in the Tory manifesto & the Tories unlike the HoL were democratically elected.
In any case the legislature in the form of the House of Lords keeps on increasing, anyway if they were to come up with that crap I think May would be delighted to create another 100 Tory peers.
If you look at the TUC post EU-ref polling it doesn't support your contention that people want either deportations or no immigration. Support for immigration (e.g. refugees) rises across all groups when coupled with a system whereby the UK controls who enters.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
People are not going to tell pollsters the unacceptable but if you believe there is no one who would a) willingly support the deportation of all East Europeans or b) willingly support the deportation of all Muslims I put it to you are naive and foolish.
I don't query the popularity and indeed the benefit of a quota or points based system and I'm sure that's where we will finish up albeit with some tweaks and changes.
The idea that the UK is some kind of liberal citadel needs to be laid to rest.
What a ludicrous straw man argument. With a couple of insults thrown in. Classy.
In a country with 65 million people there are going to be those who believe almost anything. It's rule 34, but applied generally. Some people undoubtedly would like to put the clock back, deport the muslims, kick out the Poles, shoot the Roma and so on. Those people are a very small minority.
We function quite well in this country, despite it containing fruitcakes of all types. Holocaust deniers. Flat earthers. Conspiracy theorists. To attempt to extend extreme views to the moderate, sensible majority of voters is daft.
I remember a TV documentary about prisons when the then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten suggested that we should close all prisons as they didn't work.
Don't whether he really believed it or was just trying to impress how liberal he was.
Seen very little comment here about the political Earthquake in South Africa. In local and regional elections Democtratic Alliance have gained a majority in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town and biggest party but short of a majority in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future election or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
I remember a TV documentary about prisons when the then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten suggested that we should close all prisons as they didn't work.
Don't whether he really believed it or was just trying to impress how liberal he was.
It's interesting that even Michael Gove in his incarnation as Justice Minister came to realise the value of re-education and the huge problem of re-offending within the prison population.
If you want to call it "liberal" fine, it was the view of Jenkins and other Home Secretaries. The simplisitc notion of "lock them up and throw away the key" may appeal to some but the truth is prison costs the taxpayers and if we can reduce the prison population by re-education to prevent re-offending that's beneficial on a number of levels.
I remember a TV documentary about prisons when the then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten suggested that we should close all prisons as they didn't work.
Don't whether he really believed it or was just trying to impress how liberal he was.
Seen very little comment here about the political Earthquake in South Africa. In local and regional elections Democtratic Alliance have gained a majority in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town and biggest party but short of a majority in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future election or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
This IS the moment.
As soon as the DA got a black leader, as it has now, it was always going to eat into the ANC vote. The ANC won the national vote still but it lost significant areas like Pretoria and Port Elizabeth and surrounding region to the DA so the next general election should be much closer. South Africa is already a member of the G20 though the G7 is still a long-term goal yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20
Seen very little comment here about the political Earthquake in South Africa. In local and regional elections Democtratic Alliance have gained a majority in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town and biggest party but short of a majority in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future electIion or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
This IS the moment.
It is surprising we've had little comment here. I'm spoilt on Twitter as I've a fair few followers that share stuff about it - they're jolly chuffed so far.
If you look at the TUC post EU-ref polling it doesn't support your contention that people want either deportations or no immigration. Support for immigration (e.g. refugees) rises across all groups when coupled with a system whereby the UK controls who enters.
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
People are not going to tell pollsters the unacceptable but if you believe there is no one who would a) willingly support the deportation of all East Europeans or b) willingly support the deportation of all Muslims I put it to you are naive and foolish.
I don't query the popularity and indeed the benefit of a quota or points based system and I'm sure that's where we will finish up albeit with some tweaks and changes.
The idea that the UK is some kind of liberal citadel needs to be laid to rest.
What a ludicrous straw man argument. With a couple of insults thrown in. Classy.
In a country with 65 million people there are going to be those who believe almost anything. It's rule 34, but applied generally. Some people undoubtedly would like to put the clock back, deport the muslims, kick out the Poles, shoot the Roma and so on. Those people are a very small minority.
We function quite well in this country, despite it containing fruitcakes of all types. Holocaust deniers. Flat earthers. Conspiracy theorists. To attempt to extend extreme views to the moderate, sensible majority of voters is daft.
Seen very little comment here about the political Earthquake in South Africa. In local and regional elections Democtratic Alliance have gained a majority in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town and biggest party but short of a majority in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future electIion or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
This IS the moment.
It is surprising we've had little comment here. I'm spoilt on Twitter as I've a fair few followers that share stuff about it - they're jolly chuffed so far.
This is a moment of danger. It was when Mugabe started to be really challenged in Zimbabwe that he turned murderous and ran the country into the ground.
Not much chance of SA ever joining the G7 I think, even in a positive scenario.
Seen very little comment here about the political Earthquake in South Africa. In local and regional elections Democtratic Alliance have gained a majority in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town and biggest party but short of a majority in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future electIion or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
This IS the moment.
It is surprising we've had little comment here. I'm spoilt on Twitter as I've a fair few followers that share stuff about it - they're jolly chuffed so far.
Well, South Africa is approaching a fork in the road. I'm optimistic, but waiting to see how the ANC react.
Not sure what Team GB tactics were for that Olympic road race, didn't seem like they had any.
So used to Team Sky having everything all planned to the millisecond, seemed very odd to have Cummings blow up with 100km to go, Thomas to go off without Froome etc etc etc.
Not sure what Team GB tactics were for that Olympic road race, didn't seem like they had any.
So used to Team Sky having everything all planned to the millisecond, seemed very odd to have Cummings blow up with 100km to go, Thomas to go off without Froome etc etc etc.
The commentator (Boardman?) was insistent that they rode a very good race - seemed to be trying to convince himself to be honest.
Seen very little comment here about the political Earthquake in South Africa. In local and regional elections Democtratic Alliance have gained a majority in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town and biggest party but short of a majority in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future election or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
This IS the moment.
South Africa will never join the G7- in terms of being one of the seven most important economies on the planet. It's just not that big, population wise - 50m people.
In 50 years time the G7 will be China, India, USA, the EU, Indonesia, Japan, Brazil, probably in that order of economic size. If the EU has broken up then Germany will likely be number 7 after Brazil.
South Africa's importance is relatively inflated by the tininess of the African economy. For instance, I recently flew through Joburg and was astonished to learn that Joburg is the busiest airport on the continent. That's how unbusy and unproductive Africa is.
I dug out PWC's 'The World in 2050' from last year. Apart from not including the EU as an entity in its own right, they agree except that Mexico comes in at #6 which is a surprise.
The saddest entry is Italy, which PWC believe will have fallen below Egypt in the league table.
Seen very little comment here about the political Earthquake in South Africa. In local and regional elections Democtratic Alliance have gained a majority in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town and biggest party but short of a majority in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future election or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
This IS the moment.
South Africa will never join the G7- in terms of being one of the seven most important economies on the planet. It's just not that big, population wise - 50m people.
In 50 years time the G7 will be China, India, USA, the EU, Indonesia, Japan, Brazil, probably in that order of economic size. If the EU has broken up then Germany will likely be number 7 after Brazil.
South Africa's importance is relatively inflated by the tininess of the African economy. For instance, I recently flew through Joburg and was astonished to learn that Joburg is the busiest airport on the continent. That's how unbusy and unproductive Africa is.
The G7 will change drastically by then, 5/7 of its members will probably have left, France, Italy, Canada, the UK, Germany (as you say if it is replaced by the EU). I might add Russia instead of Brazil or Indonesia.
In many respects though the G7 is now redundant and most of the important work on global politics, the economy and national security now takes place in the G20 which includes not only the current G7 (and potential future G7) but also Mexico, South Korea, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Australia and Argentina and the EU
Not sure what Team GB tactics were for that Olympic road race, didn't seem like they had any.
So used to Team Sky having everything all planned to the millisecond, seemed very odd to have Cummings blow up with 100km to go, Thomas to go off without Froome etc etc etc.
The commentator (Boardman?) was insistent that they rode a very good race - seemed to be trying to convince himself to be honest.
I believe the teams were smaller than are usual for Grand tours and no team radio, but there didn't seem like any tactics at all. Where as last week, although Thomas didn't win, there was a clear plan of attack.
'It's interesting that even Michael Gove in his incarnation as Justice Minister came to realise the value of re-education and the huge problem of re-offending within the prison population.
If you want to call it "liberal" fine, it was the view of Jenkins and other Home Secretaries. The simplisitc notion of "lock them up and throw away the key" may appeal to some but the truth is prison costs the taxpayers and if we can reduce the prison population by re-education to prevent re-offending that's beneficial on a number of levels.'
I was not talking about the need or value to re-educate prisoners or the cost to taxpayers.
Oaten was saying that prisons didn't work therefore they should be closed,fortunately he never got near the levers of power.
I remember a TV documentary about prisons when the then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten suggested that we should close all prisons as they didn't work.
Don't whether he really believed it or was just trying to impress how liberal he was.
'Maybe he was fretting about his private life...'
He did have an unusual hobby.
Was it a bit like Baldrick when he had that side line as an executioner and was known as Mr Ploppy?
Not sure what Team GB tactics were for that Olympic road race, didn't seem like they had any.
So used to Team Sky having everything all planned to the millisecond, seemed very odd to have Cummings blow up with 100km to go, Thomas to go off without Froome etc etc etc.
Seen very little comment here about the political Earthquake in South Africa. In local and regional elections Democtratic Alliance have gained a majority in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town and biggest party but short of a majority in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future election or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
This IS the moment.
South Africa will never join the G7- in terms of being one of the seven most important economies on the planet. It's just not that big, population wise - 50m people.
In 50 years time the G7 will be China, India, USA, the EU, Indonesia, Japan, Brazil, probably in that order of economic size. If the EU has broken up then Germany will likely be number 7 after Brazil.
South Africa's importance is relatively inflated by the tininess of the African economy. For instance, I recently flew through Joburg and was astonished to learn that Joburg is the busiest airport on the continent. That's how unbusy and unproductive Africa is.
I dug out PWC's 'The World in 2050' from last year. Apart from not including the EU as an entity in its own right, they agree except that Mexico comes in at #6 which is a surprise.
The saddest entry is Italy, which PWC believe will have fallen below Egypt in the league table.
Where did they put us. Now we are leaving the EU we ought still to be in the top 10 by then?
Seen very little comment here about the political Earthquake in South Africa. In local and regional elections Democtratic Alliance have gained a majority in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town and biggest party but short of a majority in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future election or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
This IS the moment.
South Africa will never join the G7- in terms of being one of the seven most important economies on the planet. It's just not that big, population wise - 50m people.
In 50 years time the G7 will be China, India, USA, the EU, Indonesia, Japan, Brazil, probably in that order of economic size. If the EU has broken up then Germany will likely be number 7 after Brazil.
South Africa's importance is relatively inflated by the tininess of the African economy. For instance, I recently flew through Joburg and was astonished to learn that Joburg is the busiest airport on the continent. That's how unbusy and unproductive Africa is.
I dug out PWC's 'The World in 2050' from last year. Apart from not including the EU as an entity in its own right, they agree except that Mexico comes in at #6 which is a surprise.
The saddest entry is Italy, which PWC believe will have fallen below Egypt in the league table.
Where did they put us. Now we are leaving the EU we ought still to be in the top 10 by then?
Seen very little comment here about the political Earthquake in South Africa. In local and regional elections Democtratic Alliance have gained a majority in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town and biggest party but short of a majority in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future election or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
This IS the moment.
South Africa will never join the G7- in terms of being one of the seven most important economies on the planet. It's just not that big, population wise - 50m people.
In 50 years time the G7 will be China, India, USA, the EU, Indonesia, Japan, Brazil, probably in that order of economic size. If the EU has broken up then Germany will likely be number 7 after Brazil.
South Africa's importance is relatively inflated by the tininess of the African economy. For instance, I recently flew through Joburg and was astonished to learn that Joburg is the busiest airport on the continent. That's how unbusy and unproductive Africa is.
I dug out PWC's 'The World in 2050' from last year. Apart from not including the EU as an entity in its own right, they agree except that Mexico comes in at #6 which is a surprise.
The saddest entry is Italy, which PWC believe will have fallen below Egypt in the league table.
Where did they put us. Now we are leaving the EU we ought still to be in the top 10 by then?
Frankly, the credibility of these predictions for me was shot the moment I saw Nigeria in the top 10.
Yes, they have the population. Yes, they have oil and other natural resources. But they also have world class corruption and Boko Harem and ... Until they address good governance and other attitudes that lead to large portions of the population excluded from growth, they will not become a world economic powerhouse.
Also, with its population going in reverse and its good governance problems, how is Russia up there?
Seen very little comment here about the political Earthquake in South Africa. In local and regional elections Democtratic Alliance have gained a majority in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town and biggest party but short of a majority in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future election or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
This IS the moment.
South Africa will never join the G7- in terms of being one of the seven most important economies on the planet. It's just not that big, population wise - 50m people. .
I dug out PWC's 'The World in 2050' from last year. Apart from .
Where did they put us. Now we are leaving the EU we ought still to be in the top 10 by then?
Frankly, the credibility of these predictions for me was shot the moment I saw Nigeria in the top 10.
Yes, they have the population. Yes, they have oil and other natural resources. But they also have world class corruption and Boko Harem and ... Until they address good governance and other attitudes that lead to large portions of the population excluded from growth, they will not become a world economic powerhouse.
Also, with its population going in reverse and its good governance problems, how is Russia up there?
Just. Don't. Buy. It.
It is largely to do with population, Nigeria has a population of 174 million and Russia 143 million, all things being equal both should therefore comfortably be in the world's largest 10 economies (Putin's pro family policies are also steadily increasing the birthrate in Russia). Though as you say this does rely on Nigeria starting to effectively exploit the natural resources they have and limit the corruption and civil wars they also have. Of course on gdp per capita grounds they are still likely to be well behind regardless
Comments
Because if you are talking about cases like Tristram Hunt and Stephen Kinnock, local pitchforks are more likely than local votes.
Most moderate Labour MP's are in safe Labour seats that are very left wing.
Carswell could manage because not only was he very popular in Clacton but because he defected to a right wing party in a very right wing seat.
Try running an independent moderate for a welsh valley seat, or an inner city one, or a N.Eastern one, they will get creamed by the left wing Labour candidate in those left wing seats.
If the resigning MP is perceived as fighting an extremist Corbynite candidate - which is how the media is likely to present such a contest - he/she will win comfortably imho.
There COULDN'T be a vote on the new boundaries in 2012 as the Boundary Commissions had not issued their reports - so there were no new boundaries to vote on.
What happened was that an amendment to the Electoral Registration Act was moved in the Lords to delay the Boundary Commissions issuing their reports until September 2018. That amendment was passed by the Lords. It was then accepted by a vote in the Commons - as per the link posted below.
So it is now the LAW that the Boundary Commissions have to issue their next reports in the month of September 2018. Note they CANNOT issue them earlier even if they finish their work earlier.
Clearly Parliament can't actually vote on new boundaries until the Boundary Commissions have formally issued their reports.
I would have liked to have commented earlier on David's piece but Saturday is the day I spend with Mr Stodge Senior and that's how it is.
David's piece is fair - I don't agree with all of it but it's well argued. Nobody I speak to in the party is under the slightest illusion this is going to be a long haul with setbacks along the way but the overall mood is much more positive than 12 months ago.
The recovery in activity is patchy and not always where you would expect - as an example, there is a vibrant LD branch in East London made up of post-2015 GE members who lack nothing in enthusiasm and effort. The old familiar areas are coming back too slowly but it's a task to reconnect with the many voters the Party lost from 2010-15.
I do think the Coalition years and the Coalition Experience for the party are still being evaluated. I'm increasingly of the view that the Coalition was less about what it did (which in all honesty wasn't all that much and nothing the radical Governments of 1945 and 1983) but what it represented in terms of continuity and stability at a time of financial and political uncertainty and chaos otherwise.
That Britain unquestionably benefited from stable Government from 2010-15 is undeniable - that the Coalition achieved all it could have is debatable.
Tim starts from where Paddy did in 1988 - a darling of the activists with a proven local campaigning record and little or no actual involvement in what went before. Ex-ministers like Norman Lamb had, if you like, the smell of the Coalition about them and after the 2015 GE that was the last thing anyone wanted.
Tim, like Paddy, lacks nothing in energy and commitment and has also recognised the LDs need to be recognised as having a USP which differentiates them from Conservatives and Labour but which has a cross-spectrum attraction hence the pro-EU "48%" motif.
The problem is twofold - one, the policy hasn't been debated within the party (it will be at Conference next month) and second, and this needs emphasising for the lazy thinkers on the Right on here, the notion the LDs are completely pro-EU is and always been a nonsense.
There always has been a sceptical minority and that has grown with Brexit - the notion we can return to the EU on the same terms we rejected in June is absurd but the thought we could carry the country on a platform of the Euro and Schengen is no less daft.
In order to be introduced, that Statutory Instrument must be accepted by votes in both the Commons AND THE LORDS.
Note that if the vote does not pass I THINK it is possible to put the SI to a vote again - though there may be a requirement to change it in some respect. That shouldn't be an issue - eg they could just make a trivial change to a constituency name.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-eu-austria-fpo-idUSKCN10H0BP
https://twitter.com/montie/status/761940870568509441
Listen to Brendan O'Neill discuss the great hate-crime panic on the @spectator podcast. https://t.co/HYFW0drSJg
The LDs are and always have been an internationalist party but that has been submerged in the public consciousness to what has been characterised and caricatured as Europhilia when it was the notion that a united European approach to regional and even global problems was or could be the way forward.
Brexit compels us to look beyond Europe and establish or re-establish the collaborative relationships we once enjoyed across the world. It won't be easy but an outward-looking internationalist viewpoint is surely preferable to narrow insular nationalism.
The problem with this laudable aim is it bumps up against the reality of immigration and the unpalatable truth a lot of people in this country want fewer or ideally no more immigrants and wouldn't object to the compulsory repatriation of certain groups already here (plenty have been demonised already, take your pick).
In politics, however, rhetoric and reality don't always rub along that well. One could argue sustaining the pensions triple lock is wrong but the Tories need the pensioners' votes and the 1990s taught them you don't antagonise the pensioners because if they a) stop voting for you and b) start voting for someone else, you're stuffed. Google Norman Lamont and VAT on fuel if you don't believe me.
So there's the world you'd like and the world you live in. We want to be outward-looking, collaborative and internationalist in outlook but we don't want the world beating a path to our door (unless they are tourists or investors) and wanting to live here may seem contradictory and absurd but it is in effect where Brexit has left us. To be fair, it works for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US and other countries.
As a liberal and an internationalist, I've found coming to terms with and rationalising the contradiction far from easy but if democracy is first and foremost about recognising the will of the people, then all parties need to recognise the immigration and assimilation model under which we have operated since the 1960s has failed and especially so since 2004.
Liberals have to realise that illiberal notions are not simply to be condemned out of hand - sometimes the illiberal is valid and indeed the only way forward in a world of finite space and resources.
'The other aspect to this is that once the Boundary Commissions issue their reports they are laid before Parliament as a Statutory Instrument.
In order to be introduced, that Statutory Instrument must be accepted by votes in both the Commons AND THE LORDS.'
Can't imagine the LORDS would be dumb enough to block it.
1. Lincoln is a long term marginal, not a safe Labour seat.
2. Taverne was deselected because he was an EEC enthusiast.
3. His seat also voted heavily for the EEC in the 1975 referendum, so his main policy matched.
4. He was personally popular:
"Through 1972 the left gained further ground in the local party and in June they made another move. Taverne organised an opinion poll in the Lincoln constituency which found that 71% said he was right to have voted in accordance with his own views rather than those of his local party, and 79% approved of him as their MP."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_by-election,_1973
5. In the end Taverne lost his seat in the GE, 18 months later.
Now give me a moderate Labour MP that can pass the first 4 tests, (even Taverne failed at the fifth one).
The difference between the US and the UK summed up in one Vine
https://t.co/YbumTizIDf
https://gqrr.app.box.com/s/8fryc6auj1y9x3f5syp6hrwqep2xz45l
I don't think immigration is that complex; people want to be able to throttle the flow as appropriate, deport criminals and other undesirables and ensure that natives are not disadvantaged when it comes to access to things like social housing.
The idea that the UK is some kind of illiberal citadel needs to be laid to rest. The evidence just doesn't support it.
'There always has been a sceptical minority and that has grown with Brexit - the notion we can return to the EU on the same terms we rejected in June is absurd but the thought we could carry the country on a platform of the Euro and Schengen is no less daft.'
Agree, that would be a hard sell to the 20% or so euro fanatics.
*titters*
1) Any kind of restraint on immigration is illiberal
2) Any deportation of anyone for any reason is illiberal
3) advocating any kind of restraint or deportation for any reason is illiberal
A quota based system - based on actual skill gaps in the UK - would be extremely popular, from what I have seen. It has been interesting to hear that such a system would be unworkable fascism, from some quarters.
Yet, throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries, liberals thought nations were good things.
Generally, we shouldn't have an issue with any permutation of (smart, well-paid, rich) entering the country.
I was appalled, and yet simultaneously it made complete sense.
If I understand this right - that's the Napoleonic view of law - where everything is illegal unless sanctioned, whereas we're the everything is legal until told otherwise end of the spectrum in the UK.
In Britain, everything is permitted unless prohibited
In Germany, everything is prohibited unless permitted
In Switzerland, everything that is not prohibited is mandatory.
Unlike the UKIP view of the world, liberals see co-operation and collaboration between nations and supranational groupings as a positive. Whether through the UN, NATO or other groups, Britain has much to offer the world but undoubtedly groups like NATO benefit from a pooling of sovereignty and a collective willingness to defend the organisation's core principles.
The EEC was nothing like as popular in 1972/73 as the June 1975 Referendum result might have implied - when the entire UK mainland voted strongly in favour of continued membership.
Taverne did actually retain his seat at the following General Election in February 1974 - but narrowly lost to Margaret Beckett in October that year..
People are not going to tell pollsters the unacceptable but if you believe there is no one who would a) willingly support the deportation of all East Europeans or b) willingly support the deportation of all Muslims I put it to you are naive and foolish.
I don't query the popularity and indeed the benefit of a quota or points based system and I'm sure that's where we will finish up albeit with some tweaks and changes.
The idea that the UK is some kind of liberal citadel needs to be laid to rest.
'It depends how you define illiberal - some people think that
1) Any kind of restraint on immigration is illiberal
2) Any deportation of anyone for any reason is illiberal
3) advocating any kind of restraint or deportation for any reason is illiberal
A quota based system - based on actual skill gaps in the UK - would be extremely popular, from what I have seen. It has been interesting to hear that such a system would be unworkable fascism, from some quarters.
Let's not mince words. People who believe any permutation of 1-3 are idiots and should not be let anywhere the levers of power.'
I remember a TV documentary about prisons when the then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten suggested that we should close all prisons as they didn't work.
Don't whether he really believed it or was just trying to impress how liberal he was.
In a country with 65 million people there are going to be those who believe almost anything. It's rule 34, but applied generally. Some people undoubtedly would like to put the clock back, deport the muslims, kick out the Poles, shoot the Roma and so on. Those people are a very small minority.
We function quite well in this country, despite it containing fruitcakes of all types. Holocaust deniers. Flat earthers. Conspiracy theorists. To attempt to extend extreme views to the moderate, sensible majority of voters is daft.
Can't imagine the LORDS would be dumb enough to block it.
'Many in the Lords might argue that reducing the size of the elected House effectively increases the power of the Executive in relation to the Legislature.'
They may be a bit old & slow in the HoL but even they might recognize that reducing the size of the HoC was in the Tory manifesto & the Tories unlike the HoL were democratically elected.
In any case the legislature in the form of the House of Lords keeps on increasing, anyway if they were to come up with that crap I think May would be delighted to create another 100 Tory peers.
This is something of an earthquake. It is now conceivable or even probable that the ANC could lose a general election. There are therefore two choices for the party - work hard to regain trust and power at a future election or go all mugabe and intimidate and cheat to avoid losing power.
On this hinges whether South Africa will become a failed state or a mature democracy and one of the worlds medium size powers in time joining the G20 and eventually G7 as a fully developed state.
This IS the moment.
It's as liberating as leaving an unhappy relationship - the sort where you make excuses to stay at work rather than go home.
If you want to call it "liberal" fine, it was the view of Jenkins and other Home Secretaries. The simplisitc notion of "lock them up and throw away the key" may appeal to some but the truth is prison costs the taxpayers and if we can reduce the prison population by re-education to prevent re-offending that's beneficial on a number of levels.
john_zims
I remember a TV documentary about prisons when the then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten suggested that we should close all prisons as they didn't work.
Don't whether he really believed it or was just trying to impress how liberal he was.
'Maybe he was fretting about his private life...'
He did have an unusual hobby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20
Not much chance of SA ever joining the G7 I think, even in a positive scenario.
So used to Team Sky having everything all planned to the millisecond, seemed very odd to have Cummings blow up with 100km to go, Thomas to go off without Froome etc etc etc.
Agreed.
Cannot really believe it sometimes.
Seems impossible, like a Briton winning Wimbledon
Or Leicester City winning the Premier League.
So unlikely as to be impossible.
The saddest entry is Italy, which PWC believe will have fallen below Egypt in the league table.
In many respects though the G7 is now redundant and most of the important work on global politics, the economy and national security now takes place in the G20 which includes not only the current G7 (and potential future G7) but also Mexico, South Korea, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Australia and Argentina and the EU
john_zims
'It's interesting that even Michael Gove in his incarnation as Justice Minister came to realise the value of re-education and the huge problem of re-offending within the prison population.
If you want to call it "liberal" fine, it was the view of Jenkins and other Home Secretaries. The simplisitc notion of "lock them up and throw away the key" may appeal to some but the truth is prison costs the taxpayers and if we can reduce the prison population by re-education to prevent re-offending that's beneficial on a number of levels.'
I was not talking about the need or value to re-educate prisoners or the cost to taxpayers.
Oaten was saying that prisons didn't work therefore they should be closed,fortunately he never got near the levers of power.
new thread
The top 10 is
1 China
2 India
3 USA
4 Indonesia
5 Brazil
6 Mexico
7 Japan
8 Russia
9 Nigeria
10 Germany
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html
The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html
Yes, they have the population. Yes, they have oil and other natural resources. But they also have world class corruption and Boko Harem and ... Until they address good governance and other attitudes that lead to large portions of the population excluded from growth, they will not become a world economic powerhouse.
Also, with its population going in reverse and its good governance problems, how is Russia up there?
Just. Don't. Buy. It.