David Herdson said: 'The way the FTPA is written, resignations can't trigger a general election (or at least, not directly). You still have to have a VoNC in the government using the wording described in the Act, so you'd have to have a government to have no confidence in.
This is the risk with the VoNC route: there is the possibility that HM could call on Corbyn, as LotO, to form a government and he might say 'yes'. He would of course fail to survive a vote himself but might still end up with the keys to No 10. HM would presumably be advised that she ought to go through the motions of seeking a potential PM and might then return to May. However, if it were clear that May had no intention of allowing a confidence vote in her passing, the Queen equally might not ask her. Corbyn would then be PM for six weeks or so from the VoNC through to election day. That might colour people's perceptions of him (and of Theresa May) differently from what they are now. '
This reflects my thinking entirely! It is not a scenario which May would risk.
5-4-3-2-1: 'This polling is meaningless/skewed/unrepresentative/voodoo'
/all of the above. There are 13 countries there, presumably the other 15 have left and no one noticed or were too wee, too poor and too stupid to be worth asking?
I hadn't thought Greece, Finland & Bulgaria were especially 'big', 'rich' & 'clever' EU players, and of course there may be huge anti EU moves being deliberately concealed in Croatia, Netherlands etc. Or not.
By the Netherlands you're referring to the nation that voted against the European Constitution and has consistently had the Eurosceptic PVV poll in the lead for the last year and a half?
Yes I suppose not too ...
But the Dutch are also one of the most pro-Euro (as in the currency) countries in Europe, perhaps even the most.
More than half of PVV voters agree with the statement "the Euro has been good for the Netherlands."
'Otherwise she will want to wait for the new boundaries. Who wouldn't ? It is always easier to do the right thing when it is also to your political advantage.'
But there is a fair chance they will not happen anyway! If a by election occurs at Thanet South I would expect the Tories to lose it - so reducing their majority to 8 unless they manage to win Copeland. I have seen four Tory MPs named as certain to oppose the Boundary changes and others will abstain.
I'm struggling with it. Where is the causal link? Even if he is right that these votes are against some common factor, then he does not really make the case that said factor is complexity. Worse than that, it is not even clear what he means by complexity.
It is not that Harris is wrong so much as that I cannot grasp what he is saying. Maybe I'm thick.
Ask yourself this, if complexity is the key, then how should we bet on the French election? Should Theresa May go to the country in 2017? Will Corbyn be Prime Minister?
How can the Opposition seriously oppose an election, if the motion was put before the Commons seeking 2/3 support? Pretty much by definition they are those who seek to replace the government, they should be eager to jump at the chance.
From a purely mathematical standpoint, there need to be 434 votes in favour (2/3 of 650), so around 103 non-Tory MPs, less any that are lost to by-elections in the meantime. More Lab MPs than that passed the vote of no confidence in Corbyn over the summer, so it could yet happen.
I agree, it would be politically very hard for the leadership to oppose it.
That said, they wouldn't have to make it easy. They could abstain on the grounds that the Tories made the act in the first place so if they don't like it they should repeal it, then immediately file a motion of No Confidence and defy the Tories to vote for it if they wanted the election.
Also Corbyn isn't in de-facto charge of the parliamentary Labour Party, so it might work for him to say, "We support this motion" and troop dutifully through the lobby with the government while the rest of his party went to the bar.
I'm struggling with it. Where is the causal link? Even if he is right that these votes are against some common factor, then he does not really make the case that said factor is complexity. Worse than that, it is not even clear what he means by complexity.
It is not that Harris is wrong so much as that I cannot grasp what he is saying. Maybe I'm thick.
Ask yourself this, if complexity is the key, then how should we bet on the French election? Should Theresa May go to the country in 2017? Will Corbyn be Prime Minister?
If his article is too complex to understand, why not just vote against reading it?
More seriously, it seems like another comment along the "people are stupid" meme.
Yellow Submarine said '@Luckyguy1983 Unless you are psychic you have to do better than that when calling me a liar. I've consistently argued the best reason for May to engineer #Mayday is because she'd win big. Every scrap of polling evidence points to that.'
Not 'every scrap of polling evidence'. Opinium less than two weeks ago had the Tory lead at 7% and was showing a swing to Labour of 0.75% in England.I know it was only one poll but ...
To me, it is interesting history. But his point that the same process could be used again against a government seems to miss the unique features and constitutional importance of the whole Brexit issue. How many issues will generate decades long public dissatisfaction which filters through to constituency party chairs without the government - of either party - acting to remove that dissatisfaction. That seems to me to be a very small Venn set of issues. Maybe even a set of 1.
It would be interesting to do a systematic study on this but I reckon the markets are irrationally biased in favour of things happening. Generally speaking things don't happen, and to the extent that they do happen, it's different things, rather than the thing that you thought might happen.
This is so true. It should be formulated as a law. "EdmundInTokyo's Law of The Stuff That Is Actually Going To Happen" or some such.
Oi. I called that law out ages ago: that punters and commentators consistently over-estimate the probability of change, but that when change does occur, change events are likely to cluster.
Tis a bit hard to know on this one until we hear who are the candidates.
My thoughts are that Jezza is not one to interfere with local selections, so the Anti-Corbyn factor amongst local Labour voters may well be much exaggerated.
My instinct is that the value is bet with the Lib Dems and against UKIP on the basis of ground game and motivation. I don't see Lab going below 30% and as such, can't really see any value in their prices.
To me, complexity in a technical sense relates to systems that exhibit emergent properties. Pretty much all social, political, socio-technical and most modern technical systems are complex in that sense. So if everything to do with politics is 'complex', what sense does Harris' point have? Beyond being axiomatic, none.
Perhaps he means it in a sense of opaque to the understanding of an electorate that does not have the time, resources, or inclination to dedicate to removing that opacity. In that sense, he is saying something that has been patently obvious for a long while and is ever more so in the aftermath of Brexit and Trump - people do not vote on policy issues per se, but on an overall emotion as to which party is closest to their own political personality on the one or two issues that are most important to them, and go with that party on all other issues.
So if the issue is disillusion with the unfair distribution of the gains of globalization, and Trump is the only person expressing such thoughts with absolute clarity, people will vote for him regardless of his abhorrent positions or statements on other issues that are not important to that set of voters.
This is fascinating - Labour finding it hard to win on any one of these issues now. Poor leadership and comm = hard to know what they stand for anymore
Mrs May has a good enough mandate from the country to pursue Brexit, regardless of her personal vote or the Conservatives' majority in Parliament.
Brexit is a major change to the UK's direction, even requiring legal guidance from the Supreme Court on how to set about issuing A50.
IMHO, to set about overturning the FTPA at the same time - another constitutional upheaval with very uncertain effects - would be silly to the point of outrageous. Who's to say that an attempt to overturn the FTPA wouldn't itself meet with court cases?
For this one piece of government business, which is likely to consume as much Civil Service/Executive time as can be made available for the foreseeable future, Mrs May needs no further mandate and, indeed, having a wafer-thin (or non-existent) majority can only be a good thing, as it enables the best scrutiny of what is going on.
It would be interesting to do a systematic study on this but I reckon the markets are irrationally biased in favour of things happening. Generally speaking things don't happen, and to the extent that they do happen, it's different things, rather than the thing that you thought might happen.
This is so true. It should be formulated as a law. "EdmundInTokyo's Law of The Stuff That Is Actually Going To Happen" or some such.
Oi. I called that law out ages ago: that punters and commentators consistently over-estimate the probability of change, but that when change does occur, change events are likely to cluster.
I'm struggling with it. Where is the causal link? Even if he is right that these votes are against some common factor, then he does not really make the case that said factor is complexity. Worse than that, it is not even clear what he means by complexity.
It is not that Harris is wrong so much as that I cannot grasp what he is saying. Maybe I'm thick.
Ask yourself this, if complexity is the key, then how should we bet on the French election? Should Theresa May go to the country in 2017? Will Corbyn be Prime Minister?
To me, complexity in a technical sense relates to systems that exhibit emergent properties. Pretty much all social, political, socio-technical and most modern technical systems are complex in that sense. So if everything to do with politics is 'complex', what sense does Harris' point have? Beyond being axiomatic, none.
Perhaps he means it in a sense of opaque to the understanding of an electorate that does not have the time, resources, or inclination to dedicate to removing that opacity. In that sense, he is saying something that has been patently obvious for a long while and is ever more so in the aftermath of Brexit and Trump - people do not vote on policy issues per se, but on an overall emotion as to which party is closest to their own political personality on the one or two issues that are most important to them, and go with that party on all other issues.
So if the issue is disillusion with the unfair distribution of the gains of globalization, and Trump is the only person expressing such thoughts with absolute clarity, people will vote for him regardless of his abhorrent positions or statements on other issues that are not important to that set of voters.
A friend of mine has severe learning disabilities. Through visiting him at his residential home, I have also come to know several others, some with much worse learning disabilities than my friend's.
I was interested to discover that there is no threshold of intelligence at all when it comes to being eligible to vote, and in that context one of the official websites explicitly says that voters are free to vote on any criteria they themselves choose.
So understanding of issues has nothing at all to do with voting.
To me, complexity in a technical sense relates to systems that exhibit emergent properties. Pretty much all social, political, socio-technical and most modern technical systems are complex in that sense. So if everything to do with politics is 'complex', what sense does Harris' point have? Beyond being axiomatic, none.
Perhaps he means it in a sense of opaque to the understanding of an electorate that does not have the time, resources, or inclination to dedicate to removing that opacity. In that sense, he is saying something that has been patently obvious for a long while and is ever more so in the aftermath of Brexit and Trump - people do not vote on policy issues per se, but on an overall emotion as to which party is closest to their own political personality on the one or two issues that are most important to them, and go with that party on all other issues.
So if the issue is disillusion with the unfair distribution of the gains of globalization, and Trump is the only person expressing such thoughts with absolute clarity, people will vote for him regardless of his abhorrent positions or statements on other issues that are not important to that set of voters.
So understanding of issues has nothing at all to do with voting.
And nor should it, unless you want to go down a very slippery road.
Over many years, I've noticed that the main reason why theological discussions are extremely hard to follow is that theologians in general are extremely bad at grammar.
But perhaps, if their sentences made sense, it would expose too many of their theories as nonsense!
I think you are saying that "understanding of issues has nothing at all to do with voting rights". Under the law, that seems to be correct although IANAL and lawyers on this site might correct us both, but it seems clear from this post:
What I was talking about was not so much voting rights, but voting practice amongst actual voters, not the eligible electorate.
Re-reading my post, I'd probably change it from if 'Trump is the only person expressing such thoughts' to 'sentiments' or 'emotions' instead of thoughts.
Mr. K, it's crackers. Reminds me of about a year ago when some clown from the Church of England suggested priests should have beards to show solidarity (or some such tosh) with Islam.
Or the Archsocialist wibbling about altering, after 2,000 years, the basis upon which the date of Easter is set to be more convenient for schools.
"So understanding of issues has nothing at all to do with voting."
Of course it doesn't, Mrs. GP. If it did the overwhelming majority of MPs would be barred from voting in the House, for one thing.
On a happy note, Herself has just served a treat that I only get at this time of year - a small plate of one our cousins' chocolate ginger sweets (absolutely delicious) accompanied by a largeish glass of the Laphroaig. Chocolate, ginger and Islay whisky - the combination of flavours is truly awesome, fit for the Gods.
For those that want a close second best I can recommend Wensleydale cheese, Christmas cake and Famous Grouse (or other whiskey of your choice).
Mrs May has a good enough mandate from the country to pursue Brexit, regardless of her personal vote or the Conservatives' majority in Parliament.
Brexit is a major change to the UK's direction, even requiring legal guidance from the Supreme Court on how to set about issuing A50.
IMHO, to set about overturning the FTPA at the same time - another constitutional upheaval with very uncertain effects - would be silly to the point of outrageous. Who's to say that an attempt to overturn the FTPA wouldn't itself meet with court cases?
If someone was daft enough to bring a case, then providing that proper procedure had been followed, then I would hope that the courts would say 'this is nothing to do with us; the law has no business interfering in politics'.
Parliament is entitled to make or unmake law just about as it sees fit.
@ DecrepitJohnL Reading the Harris piece again, I think he is making a simpler point. As the size of the political unit of government increases, so the administrative requirements of governing becomes ever more complex, larger and burdensome. Thus the costs of increased size and complexity as some point outweigh the incremental benefit. Empirically, we see this in terms of the percentage of GDP spent on government increasing over time as nations develop in complexity and grow in size.
In short, he seems to be applying the law of diminishing returns to government and political units.
Again, this is hardly a new concept. However, information technology and big data are making it easier for fewer people to deal with larger amounts of data and communication, so the size of political unit at which diminishing returns are reached should be getting larger.
Mr. K, it's crackers. Reminds me of about a year ago when some clown from the Church of England suggested priests should have beards to show solidarity (or some such tosh) with Islam.
Or the Archsocialist wibbling about altering, after 2,000 years, the basis upon which the date of Easter is set to be more convenient for schools.
@MTimT The more you read the article the less it says. His kick-off example of complexity is "those news-channel screens on which scrolling tickers and stockmarket data combine to create the impression of a world so elaborate it is beyond anyone’s control." We have had stock market tickers since 1870. His main point (borrowed from Joseph Tainter) that the Romans and the Mayas and the Zhou dynasty were very complex, and collapsed, is a mixture of classic causation/correlation confusion and observation bias: they were complex because they were big, and we notice and study the fact of their collapse because they were big. It does not follow that complexity-> collapse. After all the Byzantine empire was of, er, byzantine complexity and lasted 1000 years, whereas Alexander's lasted a decade and fell on his death, and wasn't complex at all (which was probably part of the problem).
I'm struggling with it. Where is the causal link? Even if he is right that these votes are against some common factor, then he does not really make the case that said factor is complexity. Worse than that, it is not even clear what he means by complexity.
It is not that Harris is wrong so much as that I cannot grasp what he is saying. Maybe I'm thick.
Ask yourself this, if complexity is the key, then how should we bet on the French election? Should Theresa May go to the country in 2017? Will Corbyn be Prime Minister?
If his article is too complex to understand, why not just vote against reading it?
More seriously, it seems like another comment along the "people are stupid" meme.
The article is of the type that appears in the Guardian from time to time - "The modern world is very complex. Too much complexity and choice is bad for the small brains of the Plebs. We, the Optimates, should make the decisions for them.:
That time of year of again. As traditional as satsumas, a CofE worthy dreams up some ruse for making the church more 'relevant' and the Fire-and-Brimstone Brigade predict the demise of civilisation. Has there ever been a time when this hasn't happened?
@MTimT The more you read the article the less it says. His kick-off example of complexity is "those news-channel screens on which scrolling tickers and stockmarket data combine to create the impression of a world so elaborate it is beyond anyone’s control."
It's not really about whether we're any more or less complex, but how people perceive and respond to the complexity.
When people see their lives improving they are receptive to 'experts' who say counterintuitive things like government debt isn't a problem and dismissive of people making more simplistic common-sense arguments, but when they cease to see the benefits their responses change.
@MTimT The more you read the article the less it says. His kick-off example of complexity is "those news-channel screens on which scrolling tickers and stockmarket data combine to create the impression of a world so elaborate it is beyond anyone’s control." We have had stock market tickers since 1870. His main point (borrowed from Joseph Tainter) that the Romans and the Mayas and the Zhou dynasty were very complex, and collapsed, is a mixture of classic causation/correlation confusion and observation bias: they were complex because they were big, and we notice and study the fact of their collapse because they were big. It does not follow that complexity-> collapse. After all the Byzantine empire was of, er, byzantine complexity and lasted 1000 years, whereas Alexander's lasted a decade and fell on his death, and wasn't complex at all (which was probably part of the problem).
Rule #1 of politics and history: all regimes fall.
How and why it happens, and how long it takes will vary but usually it comes down to the competition being stronger.
Countries don't necessarily follow the path that regimes do, though clearly some are tied together and the removal of one enables the fall of the other - though that depends as much as anything on the nature of the opposition that's challenging.
That time of year of again. As traditional as satsumas, a CofE worthy dreams up some ruse for making the church more 'relevant' and the Fire-and-Brimstone Brigade predict the demise of civilisation. Has there ever been a time when this hasn't happened?
What is a bit telling is that if you were shown that list with no context, and the three words "Jesus", "Christ" and "God" were added to it, you would not spot them as odd men out. That is just an observation, mind you: the sooner the C of E explicitly denies the existence of God the sooner it can urge Islam to follow suit.
That time of year of again. As traditional as satsumas, a CofE worthy dreams up some ruse for making the church more 'relevant' and the Fire-and-Brimstone Brigade predict the demise of civilisation. Has there ever been a time when this hasn't happened?
True. You forgot -
1) The CofE worthy is as trendy and relevant as Prince Charles disco dancing in a double breasted blazer. 2) The suggestion (whatever it is) is utterly ludicrous - appearing to believe that by removing the Anglican and Church bits from the Anglican Church, a sudden increase in sales will occur.
As an atheist, it is quite clear that the Church of England is rubbish at selling their product. I am considering a second career in the church - I think a nice reformation is what is needed.... anyone know where I can get a cheap deal on bulk purchase of firelighters and wood?
I'm struggling with it. Where is the causal link? Even if he is right that these votes are against some common factor, then he does not really make the case that said factor is complexity. Worse than that, it is not even clear what he means by complexity.
It is not that Harris is wrong so much as that I cannot grasp what he is saying. Maybe I'm thick.
Ask yourself this, if complexity is the key, then how should we bet on the French election? Should Theresa May go to the country in 2017? Will Corbyn be Prime Minister?
If his article is too complex to understand, why not just vote against reading it?
More seriously, it seems like another comment along the "people are stupid" meme.
The article is of the type that appears in the Guardian from time to time - "The modern world is very complex. Too much complexity and choice is bad for the small brains of the Plebs. We, the Optimates, should make the decisions for them.:
On the Trump/Brexit complexity thing, people seem to be working very hard to avoid saying that the voters don't like immigrants.
Leftists seem to be working very hard to avoid saying that the voters don't like unlimited immigrants being allowed in to the country without those voters ever being asked about it....
"So understanding of issues has nothing at all to do with voting."
Of course it doesn't, Mrs. GP. If it did the overwhelming majority of MPs would be barred from voting in the House, for one thing.
On a happy note, Herself has just served a treat that I only get at this time of year - a small plate of one our cousins' chocolate ginger sweets (absolutely delicious) accompanied by a largeish glass of the Laphroaig. Chocolate, ginger and Islay whisky - the combination of flavours is truly awesome, fit for the Gods.
For those that want a close second best I can recommend Wensleydale cheese, Christmas cake and Famous Grouse (or other whiskey of your choice).
Mr. K, it's crackers. Reminds me of about a year ago when some clown from the Church of England suggested priests should have beards to show solidarity (or some such tosh) with Islam.
Or the Archsocialist wibbling about altering, after 2,000 years, the basis upon which the date of Easter is set to be more convenient for schools.
And both of these happenings and more like them have helped to empty the pews of churches and made a laughing stock of the religion.
Tis a bit hard to know on this one until we hear who are the candidates.
My thoughts are that Jezza is not one to interfere with local selections, so the Anti-Corbyn factor amongst local Labour voters may well be much exaggerated.
This by-election could be bent all out of shape by a popular independent standing on local (health?) issues. Wise to hold off until you know the runners and riders...
I'm struggling with it. Where is the causal link? Even if he is right that these votes are against some common factor, then he does not really make the case that said factor is complexity. Worse than that, it is not even clear what he means by complexity.
It is not that Harris is wrong so much as that I cannot grasp what he is saying. Maybe I'm thick.
Ask yourself this, if complexity is the key, then how should we bet on the French election? Should Theresa May go to the country in 2017? Will Corbyn be Prime Minister?
If his article is too complex to understand, why not just vote against reading it?
More seriously, it seems like another comment along the "people are stupid" meme.
The article is of the type that appears in the Guardian from time to time - "The modern world is very complex. Too much complexity and choice is bad for the small brains of the Plebs. We, the Optimates, should make the decisions for them.:
On the Trump/Brexit complexity thing, people seem to be working very hard to avoid saying that the voters don't like immigrants.
Leftists seem to be working very hard to avoid saying that the voters don't like unlimited immigrants being allowed in to the country without those voters ever being asked about it....
Asking the Plebs anything is wrong. I mean they are wonderful people. Some of my best friendssub minimum wage gardeners and cleaners.... But really -
"The ..., on the other hand, were insolent upstarts, who, instead of being grateful for being allowed to live and work and pay taxes and serve in the army, had dared to claim a share in the government, had turned against their masters, and had set their feet upon their necks. The miserable multitude were least to blame. They were ignorant, and without leaders could be controlled easily. The guilt and the danger lay with the men of wealth and intellect, the country gentlemen, the minority ... like ..., who had taken the popular side and had deserted their own order."
I'm struggling with it. Where is the causal link? Even if he is right that these votes are against some common factor, then he does not really make the case that said factor is complexity. Worse than that, it is not even clear what he means by complexity.
It is not that Harris is wrong so much as that I cannot grasp what he is saying. Maybe I'm thick.
Ask yourself this, if complexity is the key, then how should we bet on the French election? Should Theresa May go to the country in 2017? Will Corbyn be Prime Minister?
If his article is too complex to understand, why not just vote against reading it?
More seriously, it seems like another comment along the "people are stupid" meme.
The article is of the type that appears in the Guardian from time to time - "The modern world is very complex. Too much complexity and choice is bad for the small brains of the Plebs. We, the Optimates, should make the decisions for them.:
On the Trump/Brexit complexity thing, people seem to be working very hard to avoid saying that the voters don't like immigrants.
Leftists seem to be working very hard to avoid saying that the voters don't like unlimited immigrants being allowed in to the country without those voters ever being asked about it....
Boris is a leftist? Who knew.
Also Dan Hannan has also been tweeting recently that the referendum had nothing to do with immigration
@ DecrepitJohnL Reading the Harris piece again, I think he is making a simpler point. As the size of the political unit of government increases, so the administrative requirements of governing becomes ever more complex, larger and burdensome. Thus the costs of increased size and complexity as some point outweigh the incremental benefit. Empirically, we see this in terms of the percentage of GDP spent on government increasing over time as nations develop in complexity and grow in size.
In short, he seems to be applying the law of diminishing returns to government and political units.
Again, this is hardly a new concept. However, information technology and big data are making it easier for fewer people to deal with larger amounts of data and communication, so the size of political unit at which diminishing returns are reached should be getting larger.
Harris moves between complexity as seen by individuals and complexity as something governments struggle to manage or that make the world intractible, but it is not at all obvious these are even related to each other, or that any of these observations predicts or explains the rise of Trump or Brexit.
Brexit/Trump are both examples of voters being cussed buggers who politicians take for granted at their peril. Simples.
When smug Establishment figures tell them they have to do a certain thing - whilst berating them as "Little Englanders" or "Deplorables" for even having the temerity to consider something other than their own view of the world - then it really should come as no surprise at all when those smug Establishment figures get whacked around the head with an enormo-haddock.
I thought there was non-voodoo polling from quite soon post-vote which said that sovereignty was the top issue.
I also don't see an issue here. Either you think we should have no immigration at all, anyone can come in and set up home here, and it is morally disgusting to think anything else; or we have an immigration policy, and it is ok for each and every voter to have a view on what that policy ought to be.
There are umpteen ways that Remain could've won. If Cameron hadn't banged on about Little Englanders, or Obama hadn't said we'd be at the back of the queue, or if a positive case rather than fantastical figures of doom (forecasting woe decades into the future) had been made, or if the deal had been worth a damn.
Treat voters with contempt and they're not likely to be persuaded by you.
Democracy's about freedom of choice, and it's both stupid and baffling that so many politicians (on both sides of the Atlantic) thought portraying one choice as being wrong or unacceptable was a good idea.
There are umpteen ways that Remain could've won. If Cameron hadn't banged on about Little Englanders, or Obama hadn't said we'd be at the back of the queue, or if a positive case rather than fantastical figures of doom (forecasting woe decades into the future) had been made, or if the deal had been worth a damn.
Treat voters with contempt and they're not likely to be persuaded by you.
Democracy's about freedom of choice, and it's both stupid and baffling that so many politicians (on both sides of the Atlantic) thought portraying one choice as being wrong or unacceptable was a good idea.
Sometimes one choice is wrong or unacceptable. Of course voters need to know if a politician sincerely believes that.
There are umpteen ways that Remain could've won. If Cameron hadn't banged on about Little Englanders, or Obama hadn't said we'd be at the back of the queue, or if a positive case rather than fantastical figures of doom (forecasting woe decades into the future) had been made, or if the deal had been worth a damn.
Treat voters with contempt and they're not likely to be persuaded by you.
Democracy's about freedom of choice, and it's both stupid and baffling that so many politicians (on both sides of the Atlantic) thought portraying one choice as being wrong or unacceptable was a good idea.
Sometimes one choice is wrong or unacceptable. Of course voters need to know if a politician sincerely believes that.
The general idea is to make a case as to why option A is better than option B. Merely screaming "EVUUUUUL" at the top of your voice (or "DEPLOOORABLE") will result in a large number of people voting against your choice, simply because they will believe you don't have an actual argument.
I thought there was non-voodoo polling from quite soon post-vote which said that sovereignty was the top issue.
I also don't see an issue here. Either you think we should have no immigration at all, anyone can come in and set up home here, and it is morally disgusting to think anything else; or we have an immigration policy, and it is ok for each and every voter to have a view on what that policy ought to be.
We can't have an immigration policy. It would be racist and evil to have one.
The UK Border Agency is fictional. Bit like Australia, really.
I apologise, Mr G. What was in my mind was in the context of Wensleydale cheese and Christmas cake then an Irish would be as good as a Blended Scotch. So I meant to type Whisk(e)y. Somehow I forgot the brackets. Sorry.
By the way, last week The Grouse was down to £12 in my local off-licence, today it is back up to £16. That sort of in and out running should be reported to the Jockey Club.
There are umpteen ways that Remain could've won. If Cameron hadn't banged on about Little Englanders, or Obama hadn't said we'd be at the back of the queue, or if a positive case rather than fantastical figures of doom (forecasting woe decades into the future) had been made, or if the deal had been worth a damn.
Treat voters with contempt and they're not likely to be persuaded by you.
Democracy's about freedom of choice, and it's both stupid and baffling that so many politicians (on both sides of the Atlantic) thought portraying one choice as being wrong or unacceptable was a good idea.
I doubt whether 'back of the queue' or 'Little Englanders' made a fig of difference to the undecideds. However, they certainly riled the die-hard Leavers at the time, so I can see how retrospectively recruiting them to the Leave cause makes the Brexit victory seem that much sweeter. But 'how we won the referendum' is now boring ancient history. 2017 and Article 50 is when the next wave of fun begins. Not long now. Tic toc...
I don't think the Lib Dems will get near 10% in Copeland, they're starting from near nothing and have never been considered a viable alternative to Labour in the area, even in 2010. They'll get squeezed if it's a tight Labour/Tory battle as well surely..
Comments
'The way the FTPA is written, resignations can't trigger a general election (or at least, not directly). You still have to have a VoNC in the government using the wording described in the Act, so you'd have to have a government to have no confidence in.
This is the risk with the VoNC route: there is the possibility that HM could call on Corbyn, as LotO, to form a government and he might say 'yes'. He would of course fail to survive a vote himself but might still end up with the keys to No 10. HM would presumably be advised that she ought to go through the motions of seeking a potential PM and might then return to May. However, if it were clear that May had no intention of allowing a confidence vote in her passing, the Queen equally might not ask her. Corbyn would then be PM for six weeks or so from the VoNC through to election day. That might colour people's perceptions of him (and of Theresa May) differently from what they are now. '
This reflects my thinking entirely! It is not a scenario which May would risk.
More than half of PVV voters agree with the statement "the Euro has been good for the Netherlands."
But there is a fair chance they will not happen anyway! If a by election occurs at Thanet South I would expect the Tories to lose it - so reducing their majority to 8 unless they manage to win Copeland. I have seen four Tory MPs named as certain to oppose the Boundary changes and others will abstain.
It is not that Harris is wrong so much as that I cannot grasp what he is saying. Maybe I'm thick.
Ask yourself this, if complexity is the key, then how should we bet on the French election? Should Theresa May go to the country in 2017? Will Corbyn be Prime Minister?
That said, they wouldn't have to make it easy. They could abstain on the grounds that the Tories made the act in the first place so if they don't like it they should repeal it, then immediately file a motion of No Confidence and defy the Tories to vote for it if they wanted the election.
Also Corbyn isn't in de-facto charge of the parliamentary Labour Party, so it might work for him to say, "We support this motion" and troop dutifully through the lobby with the government while the rest of his party went to the bar.
If his article is too complex to understand, why not just vote against reading it?
More seriously, it seems like another comment along the "people are stupid" meme.
'@Luckyguy1983 Unless you are psychic you have to do better than that when calling me a liar. I've consistently argued the best reason for May to engineer #Mayday is because she'd win big. Every scrap of polling evidence points to that.'
Not 'every scrap of polling evidence'. Opinium less than two weeks ago had the Tory lead at 7% and was showing a swing to Labour of 0.75% in England.I know it was only one poll but ...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-parliaments-38402140
To me, it is interesting history. But his point that the same process could be used again against a government seems to miss the unique features and constitutional importance of the whole Brexit issue. How many issues will generate decades long public dissatisfaction which filters through to constituency party chairs without the government - of either party - acting to remove that dissatisfaction. That seems to me to be a very small Venn set of issues. Maybe even a set of 1.
My thoughts are that Jezza is not one to interfere with local selections, so the Anti-Corbyn factor amongst local Labour voters may well be much exaggerated.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/814463152498806784
My instinct is that the value is bet with the Lib Dems and against UKIP on the basis of ground game and motivation. I don't see Lab going below 30% and as such, can't really see any value in their prices.
To me, complexity in a technical sense relates to systems that exhibit emergent properties. Pretty much all social, political, socio-technical and most modern technical systems are complex in that sense. So if everything to do with politics is 'complex', what sense does Harris' point have? Beyond being axiomatic, none.
Perhaps he means it in a sense of opaque to the understanding of an electorate that does not have the time, resources, or inclination to dedicate to removing that opacity. In that sense, he is saying something that has been patently obvious for a long while and is ever more so in the aftermath of Brexit and Trump - people do not vote on policy issues per se, but on an overall emotion as to which party is closest to their own political personality on the one or two issues that are most important to them, and go with that party on all other issues.
So if the issue is disillusion with the unfair distribution of the gains of globalization, and Trump is the only person expressing such thoughts with absolute clarity, people will vote for him regardless of his abhorrent positions or statements on other issues that are not important to that set of voters.
https://t.co/CAicK84whz
But any Labour MP who rebelled on that would be denied endorsement by the NEC and effectively deselected.
Sounds like it is crying out to be called the 'Clusterf*ck Theory'
Mrs May has a good enough mandate from the country to pursue Brexit, regardless of her personal vote or the Conservatives' majority in Parliament.
Brexit is a major change to the UK's direction, even requiring legal guidance from the Supreme Court on how to set about issuing A50.
IMHO, to set about overturning the FTPA at the same time - another constitutional upheaval with very uncertain effects - would be silly to the point of outrageous. Who's to say that an attempt to overturn the FTPA wouldn't itself meet with court cases?
For this one piece of government business, which is likely to consume as much Civil Service/Executive time as can be made available for the foreseeable future, Mrs May needs no further mandate and, indeed, having a wafer-thin (or non-existent) majority can only be a good thing, as it enables the best scrutiny of what is going on.
http://www.design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Fox_Hedgehog.html
I was interested to discover that there is no threshold of intelligence at all when it comes to being eligible to vote, and in that context one of the official websites explicitly says that voters are free to vote on any criteria they themselves choose.
So understanding of issues has nothing at all to do with voting.
https://twitter.com/montie/status/814447120136728576
But perhaps, if their sentences made sense, it would expose too many of their theories as nonsense!
I think you are saying that "understanding of issues has nothing at all to do with voting rights". Under the law, that seems to be correct although IANAL and lawyers on this site might correct us both, but it seems clear from this post:
https://thesmallplaces.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/spread-the-word-you-dont-need-mental-capacity-to-vote/
What I was talking about was not so much voting rights, but voting practice amongst actual voters, not the eligible electorate.
Re-reading my post, I'd probably change it from if 'Trump is the only person expressing such thoughts' to 'sentiments' or 'emotions' instead of thoughts.
Or the Archsocialist wibbling about altering, after 2,000 years, the basis upon which the date of Easter is set to be more convenient for schools.
Of course it doesn't, Mrs. GP. If it did the overwhelming majority of MPs would be barred from voting in the House, for one thing.
On a happy note, Herself has just served a treat that I only get at this time of year - a small plate of one our cousins' chocolate ginger sweets (absolutely delicious) accompanied by a largeish glass of the Laphroaig. Chocolate, ginger and Islay whisky - the combination of flavours is truly awesome, fit for the Gods.
For those that want a close second best I can recommend Wensleydale cheese, Christmas cake and Famous Grouse (or other whiskey of your choice).
Parliament is entitled to make or unmake law just about as it sees fit.
https://twitter.com/jamesglynn/status/814448549765251072
In short, he seems to be applying the law of diminishing returns to government and political units.
Again, this is hardly a new concept. However, information technology and big data are making it easier for fewer people to deal with larger amounts of data and communication, so the size of political unit at which diminishing returns are reached should be getting larger.
As has 'ladies'.
When people see their lives improving they are receptive to 'experts' who say counterintuitive things like government debt isn't a problem and dismissive of people making more simplistic common-sense arguments, but when they cease to see the benefits their responses change.
How and why it happens, and how long it takes will vary but usually it comes down to the competition being stronger.
Countries don't necessarily follow the path that regimes do, though clearly some are tied together and the removal of one enables the fall of the other - though that depends as much as anything on the nature of the opposition that's challenging.
1) The CofE worthy is as trendy and relevant as Prince Charles disco dancing in a double breasted blazer.
2) The suggestion (whatever it is) is utterly ludicrous - appearing to believe that by removing the Anglican and Church bits from the Anglican Church, a sudden increase in sales will occur.
As an atheist, it is quite clear that the Church of England is rubbish at selling their product. I am considering a second career in the church - I think a nice reformation is what is needed.... anyone know where I can get a cheap deal on bulk purchase of firelighters and wood?
"The ..., on the other hand, were insolent upstarts, who, instead of being grateful for being allowed to live and work and pay taxes and serve in the army, had dared to claim a share in the government, had turned against their masters, and had set their feet upon their necks. The miserable multitude were least to blame. They were ignorant, and without leaders could be controlled easily. The guilt and the danger lay with the men of wealth and intellect, the country gentlemen, the minority ... like ..., who had taken the popular side and had deserted their own order."
Also Dan Hannan has also been tweeting recently that the referendum had nothing to do with immigration
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/814507332428296192
When smug Establishment figures tell them they have to do a certain thing - whilst berating them as "Little Englanders" or "Deplorables" for even having the temerity to consider something other than their own view of the world - then it really should come as no surprise at all when those smug Establishment figures get whacked around the head with an enormo-haddock.
That they were surprised is the surprise.
I also don't see an issue here. Either you think we should have no immigration at all, anyone can come in and set up home here, and it is morally disgusting to think anything else; or we have an immigration policy, and it is ok for each and every voter to have a view on what that policy ought to be.
There are umpteen ways that Remain could've won. If Cameron hadn't banged on about Little Englanders, or Obama hadn't said we'd be at the back of the queue, or if a positive case rather than fantastical figures of doom (forecasting woe decades into the future) had been made, or if the deal had been worth a damn.
Treat voters with contempt and they're not likely to be persuaded by you.
Democracy's about freedom of choice, and it's both stupid and baffling that so many politicians (on both sides of the Atlantic) thought portraying one choice as being wrong or unacceptable was a good idea.
http://www.fox5ny.com/news/220448846-story
The UK Border Agency is fictional. Bit like Australia, really.
I apologise, Mr G. What was in my mind was in the context of Wensleydale cheese and Christmas cake then an Irish would be as good as a Blended Scotch. So I meant to type Whisk(e)y. Somehow I forgot the brackets. Sorry.
By the way, last week The Grouse was down to £12 in my local off-licence, today it is back up to £16. That sort of in and out running should be reported to the Jockey Club.
NEW THREAD