I think people the UK completely overestimate the significance of the UK to Australia. Australia looks to the USA for cultural and security matters and to Asia for economic and business links. There is no appetite on any part of the Australian political spectrum (apart from Tony Abbott) for closer links with the UK and quite a few who'd like to loosen what ties exist (eg the monarchy) even more.
It ought to go without saying that if there was a different system of election for Westminster it would affect the way people vote and it would also affect the relative strength of the parties.
For example, the possibility of a strong Ukip presence in parliament would energise all parties to fight harder against them. It would also encourage the Labour party to get its vote out in its heartlands since those votes would no longer be wasted.
Apparently the £50 note could be scrapped (or at least not replaced with a plastic version), for similar reasons to why large denomination banknotes are being taken out of service in India and other countries at the moment.
FPTP is a much better electoral system for a Parliament - there is a higher chance of a majority and the government can be held to account on their manifesto, rather than negotiating most of it away in negotiations *after* the election.
Important policies aren't usually in the manifesto, not least because they're usually a response to Events. The Iraq War wasn't in the Labour manifesto, and the current government ran on eliminating the deficit and staying in the Single Market, all of which has been unceremoniously dumped.
I'd have a bit more sympathy for this argument if parties at least kept the same leader they had during the election and held a new election if they wanted to change them, but they don't. Of the last four Prime Ministers who led majority governments, three took over in office after FPTP voters gave a majority to somebody else.
Ok fair enough, but in the same Department and pretty close to the action at the relevant time.
There's nothing to be gained in arguing with hairsplitters.
I'd suggest that Downer has more locus standi than an anonymous permaposter on the internet.
One thing Downer says is pretty damning of the UK:
"I was the Australian foreign minister for nearly 12 years. Not once in that period did a British foreign secretary visit Australia."
We should do much more to nurture bilateral relations with Australia. Leaving the EU was never a necessary condition to making a start. If anything it was the delusion of the 'special relationship' with the US which made us forget our much closer ties with the Commonwealth.
Given that we stabbed Australia and much of the rest of the Commonwealth in the back in order to join the EEC I am not surprised if they are not exactly delighted about us wanting to renew relations.
Apparently the £50 note could be scrapped (or at least not replaced with a plastic version), for similar reasons to why large denomination banknotes are being taken out of service in India and other countries at the moment.
Spectre is mid-rank Bond in terms of box-office (14 out of 25, adjusted for inflation) - of the Craig Bonds, Skyfall (no 3) is the clear winner, Spectre worst:
@ edmund "Of the last four Prime Ministers who led majority governments, three took over in office after FPTP voters gave a majority to somebody else."
Of the last four, or five? I presume you mean Major, Brown and May. Blair and Cameron ascended to the post as a result of a GE.
@MrTimT Cameron got in as part of a coalition not a majority government. So the scores on the doors for PMs taking office thanks to identifiable actions of voters are Coalitions 100%, FPTP-assisted majority governments 25%.
Also: the Labour Party utterly despises the LibDems, and it's reciprocated. And by making a vote for Farron, a vote for Corbyn, you encourage people to vote for Theresa May or to stay at home.
Morning all: regarding trade deals, it is easiest for countries with non-overlapping areas of activity to enter into trade deals. It is difficult where one country exports something that competes with a protected industry in another.
So, Australia should be an easy country for us to enter into an agreement with: they mine commodities, we produce services. That being said, it is worth remembering that Belgium's imports are 50% more than Australia's, and a lot of things we make, and Australia imports, that are unlikely to see a boost (like cars) because the distances make it uneconomic.
I would reckon the easiest countries in the world to do trade deals with would be: the EFTA countries, Canada, Australia, and South Korea. Why?
Canada and South Korea are the two most genuinely free trade medium or large economies in the world. They both have non-overlapping areas of activity with the UK. They have both been active in signing FTAs around the world, and can move relatively quickly. The EFTA countries already have good trade links with the UK and would also want to move quickly.
The issue for the UK, however, is that the EU already has FTAs with three of these four. CETA is the Canada-EU deal, there is a comprehensive South Korea FTA* that has been in place since 2011, and - of course - the EFTA countries have deals with the EU (both the EEA agreement and Switzerland's bilateral deals).
Which means that, of the deals we're likely to sign relatively rapidly following Brexit, only one of them adds a new free trade market.
The big question, then, is the US. And I think some people on this board are unaware of how onerous membership of NAFTA is from a sovereignty basis. Repealing the European Communities Act to sign a deal which made the UK parliament subservient to US ISDS tribunals that met in secret, and which denuded the UK of sovereignty in - for example - intellectual property law would be a betrayal of those who opposed UK membership of the EU for sovereignty reasons.
I would also very much doubt that - even in the most optimistic of scenarios, that the exit of Mexico from NAFTA, and our entrance could be achieved within the next five years. Simply, you can't take the text of the agreement (https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Legal-Texts/North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement) and make the UK a signatory without major changes.
I am not trying to put a downer on the opportunities post Brexit; because the opportunities are there. But I think people tend to be a little naive about the challenges associated with signing complex international agreements. I was amused, for example, to discover that the China-Maldives free trade discussions are now on their fourth round, and the likelihood of a signed deal before 2019 looks remote. Seven years for a country that has exactly two businesses: fish and tourism. We should bear that in mind.
* Which rather bizarrely is not in force for the UK
Also: the Labour Party utterly despises the LibDems, and it's reciprocated. And by making a vote for Farron, a vote for Corbyn, you encourage people to vote for Theresa May or to stay at home.
In other words, it's a stupid idea.
Go for it.
Are we not more likely to see an anti-Labour-PM vote in the next election, as we saw in the last one?
The next two or three dozen marginals down the list would be utterly horrified at the prospect of Corbyn as PM, and a few more well placed comments from Mr Salmond about how he would do anything to stop the evil Tories will only extend the English swing into landslide territory.
I can see a couple of yellow seats coming back in the SW (and SW London) but it really should be a walk in the park for Mrs May to come out with 330 seats of 600.
I stand to be corrected, but without a "quote" reply facility I expect the number of posts on PB.com to fall away alarmingly, to half or less than previously and perhaps this is already the case. Without wishing to appear too dramatic, in order to save the site urgent remedial action is required. It would indeed be sad were PB.com to wither and die after 12(?) hugely successful years.
I've contacted vanilla and they can't/won't fix it until the new year. I therefore have two choices: deal with it, or change our entire commenting system.
Not sure I'd want to be a farmer right now with my fate in the hands of the three clowns.
Farming Today has been embarassing recently. There was was programme thar they were doing a tour of one of the agricultural colleges desperately trying to find someone who was worried about their career prospects as a result of Brexit.
I've contacted vanilla and they can't/won't fix it until the new year. I therefore have two choices: deal with it, or change our entire commenting system.
Option 3 - sue them for negligence resulting in irrepairable damage to your brand equity.
In the American courts
Maybe you can find away to use the Martin Act to go for triple damages...
Comments
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-visits-hong-kong-australia-and-new-zealand
For example, the possibility of a strong Ukip presence in parliament would energise all parties to fight harder against them. It would also encourage the Labour party to get its vote out in its heartlands since those votes would no longer be wasted.
I'd have a bit more sympathy for this argument if parties at least kept the same leader they had during the election and held a new election if they wanted to change them, but they don't. Of the last four Prime Ministers who led majority governments, three took over in office after FPTP voters gave a majority to somebody else.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/02/plastic-5-notes-featuring-sir-winston-churchill-that-are-unteara/
There may be a resurgence once HM QEII departs the scene - no one wants to be seen duffing up a ninety year old.....
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm
Of the last four, or five? I presume you mean Major, Brown and May. Blair and Cameron ascended to the post as a result of a GE.
Also, still no quote button??
In other words, it's a stupid idea.
Go for it.
So, Australia should be an easy country for us to enter into an agreement with: they mine commodities, we produce services. That being said, it is worth remembering that Belgium's imports are 50% more than Australia's, and a lot of things we make, and Australia imports, that are unlikely to see a boost (like cars) because the distances make it uneconomic.
I would reckon the easiest countries in the world to do trade deals with would be: the EFTA countries, Canada, Australia, and South Korea. Why?
Canada and South Korea are the two most genuinely free trade medium or large economies in the world. They both have non-overlapping areas of activity with the UK. They have both been active in signing FTAs around the world, and can move relatively quickly. The EFTA countries already have good trade links with the UK and would also want to move quickly.
The issue for the UK, however, is that the EU already has FTAs with three of these four. CETA is the Canada-EU deal, there is a comprehensive South Korea FTA* that has been in place since 2011, and - of course - the EFTA countries have deals with the EU (both the EEA agreement and Switzerland's bilateral deals).
Which means that, of the deals we're likely to sign relatively rapidly following Brexit, only one of them adds a new free trade market.
The big question, then, is the US. And I think some people on this board are unaware of how onerous membership of NAFTA is from a sovereignty basis. Repealing the European Communities Act to sign a deal which made the UK parliament subservient to US ISDS tribunals that met in secret, and which denuded the UK of sovereignty in - for example - intellectual property law would be a betrayal of those who opposed UK membership of the EU for sovereignty reasons.
I would also very much doubt that - even in the most optimistic of scenarios, that the exit of Mexico from NAFTA, and our entrance could be achieved within the next five years. Simply, you can't take the text of the agreement (https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Legal-Texts/North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement) and make the UK a signatory without major changes.
I am not trying to put a downer on the opportunities post Brexit; because the opportunities are there. But I think people tend to be a little naive about the challenges associated with signing complex international agreements. I was amused, for example, to discover that the China-Maldives free trade discussions are now on their fourth round, and the likelihood of a signed deal before 2019 looks remote. Seven years for a country that has exactly two businesses: fish and tourism. We should bear that in mind.
* Which rather bizarrely is not in force for the UK
The next two or three dozen marginals down the list would be utterly horrified at the prospect of Corbyn as PM, and a few more well placed comments from Mr Salmond about how he would do anything to stop the evil Tories will only extend the English swing into landslide territory.
I can see a couple of yellow seats coming back in the SW (and SW London) but it really should be a walk in the park for Mrs May to come out with 330 seats of 600.
I stand to be corrected, but without a "quote" reply facility I expect the number of posts on PB.com to fall away alarmingly, to half or less than previously and perhaps this is already the case.
Without wishing to appear too dramatic, in order to save the site urgent remedial action is required.
It would indeed be sad were PB.com to wither and die after 12(?) hugely successful years.
I've contacted vanilla and they can't/won't fix it until the new year. I therefore have two choices: deal with it, or change our entire commenting system.
But it isn't. So I didn't.
I almost felt sorry for the presenter.
In the American courts
Maybe you can find away to use the Martin Act to go for triple damages...
2. There is a quote facility, as this demonstrates.
So UKIP must surely be included as part of the progressive grouping?