Re Gibraltar, I'm just back from Minorca, where the proprietor of a fairly upmarket restaurant was aggressive and rude to my meek, 88 year old, frail father.
It did cross our minds that it may have been because the Spanish news was full of the Gibraltar stuff last week. Or do Minorcans have an historic hatred for the British due to the naval stuff?
Actually, it is far more likely that the proprietor was just a sad middle aged twat who is unable to get it up and takes out his frustration on his customers.
Anyone educated under Franco would have had Gibraltar shoved down their throats all through school. I used to get the odd bit of abuse about it when I lived in Spain - and that was in Catalonia, not a hotbed of Spanish nationalism, to say the least. Also all the Balearics have traditionally been a PP stronghold, despite being Catalan speaking.
I just don't understand why someone has arbitrarily placed the winning post for being called a PR system where they have.
At the risk of extending this discussion further than it deserves, proportional representation is a system in which the representation of a party in the legislature is proportional-ish to the number of votes received.
And that is a damn fine reason why it should have no place in our electoral system. It gives far too much power to parties over individual elected representatives and as such reduces democracy rather than increasing it.
The parties already have far too much power and this is one major reason why people are becoming more and more disillusioned with our political system and why many of them don't bother voting anymore. Why vote for a supposed local representative when they are going to end up representing the views and wishes of the party rather than that of their constituents?
That does depend very much on the form of PR. Closed lists, as used for the EP, are dreadful and leave virtually everything in the hands of the parties. STV, by contrast, while slightly less proportional (because the constituencies can't practically be as large), gives voters more choice than they have under FPTP.
Technically, STV isn't really PR at all as there's no mechanical link between vote and party (which is an advantage if you value choice), but for practical purposes there is, as many voters will give their first two or three preferences to members of the same party, and preferences beyond that rarely have too much impact.
Whatever system of PR is used, the constituencies have to be larger than FPTP or AV in order to provide the balance. The alternative I prefer is state-operated primaries, which still gives the public choice but retains the most local constituency link.
Why does the state get to mandate party selection policies?
Not to mention the state sponsored primaries in the USA contribute to the stranglehold the big two over there have and help squash smaller parties.
They don't squash the smaller parties, they enable the voters to change the two larger parties to suit their priorities.
LABOUR power couple Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper have been accused of plotting against ailing leader Ed Miliband — by attending a summer barbecue with local activists.
The headline's about the only decent thing in the story.....if the Balls are plotting a leadership coup, local party activists is probably not the best place to start....
A proposal which would be totally impractical to enforce and doesn't offer much benefit.
It is perfectly possible to enforce just as banning overt bribing of MPs is enforced. And the benefits would be huge. If a government can no longer rely on a whipped vote to get measures passed through Parliament then they will have to rely far more upon persuading members based on the merits of the proposal.
Not even nearly. One of the basic measures of whipping is for example the prospect of promotion, or a more sympathetic ear to said member's ideas/concerns/etc. How are you going to 'ban' that?
As a second point, people largely vote by party name. Such is the reality, the members are nominated representatives of their party to the community as well as representatives of the community to parliament. If a member intends to rebel against his party more often, or on particular issues then he should announce that when standing.
Anyone educated under Franco would have had Gibraltar shoved down their throats all through school. I used to get the odd bit of abuse about it when I lived in Spain - and that was in Catalonia, not a hotbed of Spanish nationalism, to say the least. Also all the Balearics have traditionally been a PP stronghold, despite being Catalan speaking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minorca Invaded by Britain's Royal Navy in 1708 during the War of the Spanish Succession, Minorca temporarily became a British possession. Britain took possession in 1713 under the terms of the Article XI of the Treaty of Utrecht. Under the governorship of General Richard Kane, this period saw the island's capital moved to Port Mahon, and a naval base established in that town's harbour.
During the Seven Years' War, Spain regained the island in 1756 after the Battle of Minorca. British resistance persisted at Port Mahon, but the garrison was forced to capitulate under honourable terms, including free passage back to Britain, on 29 June of that same year. Thanks to the Treaty of Paris (1763), the British returned to the island again following Britain's victory in the Seven Years' War. During the American War of Independence, the British were defeated for a second time, in this instance by a combination of French and Spanish forces, which regained the island after a long siege of St. Philip's Castle in Port Mahon on 5 February 1782. The British ceded the island back to Spain the next year in the Treaty of Versailles. Minorca was invaded by the British once again in 1798, during the French Revolutionary Wars, but it was finally and permanently repossessed by Spain by the terms of the Treaty of Amiens in 1802. The British influence can still be seen in local architecture with elements such as sash windows.
As the rest of the Balearic Islands, Minorca was not occupied by the French during the Peninsular War, as it was successfully protected by the Royal Navy, this time allied to Spain.
[..] After the Nationalist victory in the Battle of Minorca in February 1939, the British Navy assisted in a peaceful transfer of power in Minorca and the evacuation of some political refugees aboard HMS Devonshire.
Fortunately for Chukka this has all blown up when most people still haven't heard of him, and he can learn from the mistake, Obama hardly mixed with the most squeeky clean people in Chicago either but it did not stop him either
That's because the people Obama mixed with were unbelievably effective political fixers, well versed in the black arts.
I don't think Chuka has got that - it's just a faintly hypocritical move (although blown out of all significance. If anything the fact that you can take money from someone and then still campaign against one specific interest of theirs is a good thing on balance).
I doubt this will do him any more harm than Ecclestone did to Blair. It's just be something that committed opponents lambaste him with
I still think it is moving in the wrong direction. Our aim should be to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. As you know my personal preference is for banning whipping and having all votes in parliament as free votes.
I don't think banning whipping is plausible. You end up having 'whipped' free votes. At least with official whipping it's out in the open most of the time.
Why does the state get to mandate party selection policies?
Not to mention the state sponsored primaries in the USA contribute to the stranglehold the big two over there have and help squash smaller parties.
I believe in open primaries because party memberships have fallen to such a low level that the memberships are too unrepresentative (which is one reason why central organisations have taken increasing control of the process).
There need be no compulsion for any party to use primaries and indeed, were I writing the legislation, I'd set thresholds to avoid minor parties abusing the process, but I'd have thought that most parties would want to select someone who has broad appeal to the constituency in question. Not all US states use primaries, for example.
Yes, it probably would reduce political plurality in party numbers but that plurality would still exist within parties, which in any case could not exercise the same degree of control if each MP had a greater local personal mandate (as opposed to having been elected primarily because of the colour of their rosette). Besides, I've said before, I don't think excessive plurality is a good thing - it leads to fragmentation and an inability to hold anyone to account because of the concessions and negotiations of coalitions or hung parliaments etc. The important thing is retaining a parliament with a wide range of views. How they're arranged within that is a secondary consideration.
Your proposals turn back on themselves. Parties are themselves coalitions, with negotiations, concessions etc. If you increase the personal mandate of members then you have the same negotiating process going on, albeit within parties rather than between them. A cosmetic change which if anything is likely to be less transparent and more unaccountable.
On a practical note good luck selling an increase of millions upon millions of state funding to parties in order to hold these selections.
A referendum on PR might be an option, though. The Tory side would have won the AV referendum and probably the Scottish Independence one, too, so they'd probably be pretty confident they'd win the PR one and get to stay in government for free.
It's not for free.
When the Tories keep their promises (e.g. AV or bringing forward Lords reform) but it doesn't go the way the LibDems hope, you get lots of attempts to try and blame the Tories for breaking their word.
They don't squash the smaller parties, they enable the voters to change the two larger parties to suit their priorities.
They undoubtedly squash smaller parties, they also allow voters to express more complex views to the big 2 and effect change that way, but the entwining of the major parties with the state and high thresholds help perpetuate their ongoing establishment.
Not to mention the state sponsored primaries in the USA contribute to the stranglehold the big two over there have and help squash smaller parties... They don't squash the smaller parties, they enable the voters to change the two larger parties to suit their priorities.
Right, but then the voting system squashes the smaller parties. The primaries relieve just enough of the pressure that creates to prevent any smaller party from breaking through it.
The hitch is that the primary voters don't pay much attention to the detail and the big parties are owned by the interest groups that fund them, so the voters don't really have as much control as they feel like they do.
This seems like a no-brainer for the bigger UK parties as a way to fight off the growing threats to their duopoly. But like a lot of entrenched incumbents that lose their market share to nimbler, disruptive competitors, I don't suppose they'll react to the threat until it's too late.
Our aim should be to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. As you know my personal preference is for banning whipping and having all votes in parliament as free votes.
So what happens when MPs freely vote (not necessarily exactly the same MPs) in two diametrically contradictory ways, for example for spending increases and for tax cuts, each of which might command a majority when considered in isolation, but which you can't have both of?
A referendum on PR might be an option, though. The Tory side would have won the AV referendum and probably the Scottish Independence one, too, so they'd probably be pretty confident they'd win the PR one and get to stay in government for free.
It's not for free.
When the Tories keep their promises (e.g. AV or bringing forward Lords reform) but it doesn't go the way the LibDems hope, you get lots of attempts to try and blame the Tories for breaking their word.
Mhm, Tories believed that "bring forward" meant one thing when they were talking about Lords reform, and something totally different when "bring forward" was used while talking about re-shaping constituencies.
Then were apparently surprised at suggestions that the same phrase in the same document should mean the same thing.
A referendum on PR might be an option, though. The Tory side would have won the AV referendum and probably the Scottish Independence one, too, so they'd probably be pretty confident they'd win the PR one and get to stay in government for free.
It's not for free.
When the Tories keep their promises (e.g. AV or bringing forward Lords reform) but it doesn't go the way the LibDems hope, you get lots of attempts to try and blame the Tories for breaking their word.
This has been done a billion times before here but no, the Tories didn't get their boundaries because they couldn't deliver Lords reform, despite Clegg optimizing his proposal in a very non-LibDemmy way to accommodate the concerns of people who claimed to be on the fence.
Our aim should be to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. As you know my personal preference is for banning whipping and having all votes in parliament as free votes.
So what happens when MPs freely vote (not necessarily exactly the same MPs) in two diametrically contradictory ways, for example for spending increases and for tax cuts, each of which might command a majority when considered in isolation, but which you can't have both of?
The MPs would freely vote to combine those things into a single vote, which they'd then freely vote on.
But in reality they're always going to form factions and cut deals.
I tuned into Newsnight and yet again another Radio 5 Presenter - Victoria Derbyshire is on. Is this some sign of the future? Or just some trials in the holiday period? Unfortunately she lacks substance on screen.
She's a definite new hire - was in the Standard. I thought she was really good on some not very partisan issues when I caught her on the radio. Perhaps she'll settle in at Newsnight.
Technically, STV isn't really PR at all as there's no mechanical link between vote and party
Okay, so STV = PR yes or no?
It is more proportional than FPTP. Scottish local government is a case in point - under FPTP about 50% of voters got who they voted for elected. Under STV about 75% of voters get their first choice candidate elected. There is no perfect electoral system - the length of the ballot paper is a practical limiting factor.
The perfect UKIP politician - delighting supporters and inciting outrage in the Guardian at the same time:
"A senior Ukip politician has been recorded telling activists that Britain should not be sending aid to "bongo bongo land".
Godfrey Bloom, a Ukip member of the European parliament, made the comments to a meeting of supporters in the West Midlands. He suggested foreigners used aid to "buy Ray-Ban sunglasses" and "apartments in Paris".
A referendum on PR might be an option, though. The Tory side would have won the AV referendum and probably the Scottish Independence one, too, so they'd probably be pretty confident they'd win the PR one and get to stay in government for free.
It's not for free.
When the Tories keep their promises (e.g. AV or bringing forward Lords reform) but it doesn't go the way the LibDems hope, you get lots of attempts to try and blame the Tories for breaking their word.
Mhm, Tories believed that "bring forward" meant one thing when they were talking about Lords reform, and something totally different when "bring forward" was used while talking about re-shaping constituencies.
Then were apparently surprised at suggestions that the same phrase in the same document should mean the same thing.
The "bring forward" always relates to the house of commons.
- They planned to "bring forward" the Referendum Bill, including both AV and constituency reduction. Strictly speaking there was only a commitment to whip on the AV part, so if the LibDems had chosen to amend it at this point it would have been against the spirit of the agreement, but technically ok
- Lords reform: they pledged to establish a committee (DONE) to bring forward proposals for reform (DONE)... a few details set out on likely proposals (not important)... the appointments in the interim to create a house reflective of the 2010 GE vote share (DONE, at least for the LibDems)
I'm not aware of any other cases of the HoC rejecting the decision of the Boundary Commission once the mandate has been set. Don't forget that this body is independent and apolitical. Effectively the LibDems were throwing their toys out of the pram.
A referendum on PR might be an option, though. The Tory side would have won the AV referendum and probably the Scottish Independence one, too, so they'd probably be pretty confident they'd win the PR one and get to stay in government for free.
It's not for free.
When the Tories keep their promises (e.g. AV or bringing forward Lords reform) but it doesn't go the way the LibDems hope, you get lots of attempts to try and blame the Tories for breaking their word.
This has been done a billion times before here but no, the Tories didn't get their boundaries because they couldn't deliver Lords reform, despite Clegg optimizing his proposal in a very non-LibDemmy way to accommodate the concerns of people who claimed to be on the fence.
Indeed it has been done a billion times before.
But people still get it wrong, I assume deliberately, since few on here are stupid.
Cameron did not commit to whip through Lords Reform because he knew he couldn't deliver his backbenchers. So he never promised to.
Our aim should be to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. As you know my personal preference is for banning whipping and having all votes in parliament as free votes.
So what happens when MPs freely vote (not necessarily exactly the same MPs) in two diametrically contradictory ways, for example for spending increases and for tax cuts, each of which might command a majority when considered in isolation, but which you can't have both of?
Then the government has to try and square the circle (by making cuts in other areas) or accept that it cannot do so and step down. If it is so utterly useless that it has allowed such a position to develop then it doesn't deserve to be in power in the first place.
A referendum on PR might be an option, though. The Tory side would have won the AV referendum and probably the Scottish Independence one, too, so they'd probably be pretty confident they'd win the PR one and get to stay in government for free.
It's not for free.
When the Tories keep their promises (e.g. AV or bringing forward Lords reform) but it doesn't go the way the LibDems hope, you get lots of attempts to try and blame the Tories for breaking their word.
This has been done a billion times before here but no, the Tories didn't get their boundaries because they couldn't deliver Lords reform, despite Clegg optimizing his proposal in a very non-LibDemmy way to accommodate the concerns of people who claimed to be on the fence.
Indeed it has been done a billion times before.
But people still get it wrong, I assume deliberately, since few on here are stupid.
Cameron did not commit to whip through Lords Reform because he knew he couldn't deliver his backbenchers. So he never promised to.
Cameron did whip Lords Reform, his party didn't follow, partly because some of his MPs wanted to see the boundary changes go down as well.
I still think it is moving in the wrong direction. Our aim should be to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. As you know my personal preference is for banning whipping and having all votes in parliament as free votes.
I don't think banning whipping is plausible. You end up having 'whipped' free votes. At least with official whipping it's out in the open most of the time.
Nope, you simply make any coercion outside of reasoned argument illegal. No threats, no bribes. I am sure that it used to be said that it would be impossible to enforce a ban on overt bribing of MPs and yet today it is generally accepted that it only happens in very few cases and that those who do indulge in the sorts of bribery/lobbying we have heard of recently will be found out.
"England were singing in the rain as the weather ensured they retained the Ashes at Old Trafford on Monday - but those with tickets for the fourth Test at Chester-le-Street are likely to be less happy.
The BBC broadcaster Patrick Gearey posted a picture on Twitter of a waterlogged pitch at the Riverside Ground and leaden skies above, suggesting the Durham ground staff have their work cut out to ensure play on Friday.
The picture showed enormous puddles swamping the entire outfield and the covers in the middle offering scant protection against the torrential rain":
A proposal which would be totally impractical to enforce and doesn't offer much benefit.
It is perfectly possible to enforce just as banning overt bribing of MPs is enforced. And the benefits would be huge. If a government can no longer rely on a whipped vote to get measures passed through Parliament then they will have to rely far more upon persuading members based on the merits of the proposal.
Not even nearly. One of the basic measures of whipping is for example the prospect of promotion, or a more sympathetic ear to said member's ideas/concerns/etc. How are you going to 'ban' that?
As a second point, people largely vote by party name. Such is the reality, the members are nominated representatives of their party to the community as well as representatives of the community to parliament. If a member intends to rebel against his party more often, or on particular issues then he should announce that when standing.
Legally and constitutionally they vote for an individual representative. It has suited the parties to try and hide this fact and pretend we vote for a party but we do not. But no matter how much you might not like it we do not vote for a party. That is why MPs can (quite rightly) cross the floor without having to seek re-election.
Of course there are those (apparently like yourself) who see parties as more important than constituents when it comes to an MP's loyalties. I do not hold with that and most people would agree that an MP should serve their constituents and their conscience not their party and their own vested interests.
The "bring forward" always relates to the house of commons.
- They planned to "bring forward" the Referendum Bill, including both AV and constituency reduction. Strictly speaking there was only a commitment to whip on the AV part, so if the LibDems had chosen to amend it at this point it would have been against the spirit of the agreement, but technically ok
- Lords reform: they pledged to establish a committee (DONE) to bring forward proposals for reform (DONE)... a few details set out on likely proposals (not important)... the appointments in the interim to create a house reflective of the 2010 GE vote share (DONE, at least for the LibDems)
I'm not aware of any other cases of the HoC rejecting the decision of the Boundary Commission once the mandate has been set. Don't forget that this body is independent and apolitical. Effectively the LibDems were throwing their toys out of the pram.
You can view it two ways Charles. Either bring forward meant voting support for something or it doesn't.
If it does then by voting down the Lords reform the Tories broke it, and the Lib Dems broke it in response by rejecting the reduction in seat numbers.
If it doesn't then the Tories broke nothing by bringing forward the proposals and voting them down, and the Lib Dems broke nothing by bringing forward the boundary proposals and then voting them down.
It's impressively farcical to try and have it both ways.
The boundary commission made recommendation based on the Tories parameters, voting them down was a rejection of those paramaters.
A proposal which would be totally impractical to enforce and doesn't offer much benefit.
It is perfectly possible to enforce just as banning overt bribing of MPs is enforced. And the benefits would be huge. If a government can no longer rely on a whipped vote to get measures passed through Parliament then they will have to rely far more upon persuading members based on the merits of the proposal.
Not even nearly. One of the basic measures of whipping is for example the prospect of promotion, or a more sympathetic ear to said member's ideas/concerns/etc. How are you going to 'ban' that?
As a second point, people largely vote by party name. Such is the reality, the members are nominated representatives of their party to the community as well as representatives of the community to parliament. If a member intends to rebel against his party more often, or on particular issues then he should announce that when standing.
Legally and constitutionally they vote for an individual representative. It has suited the parties to try and hide this fact and pretend we vote for a party but we do not. But no matter how much you might not like it we do not vote for a party. That is why MPs can (quite rightly) cross the floor without having to seek re-election.
Of course there are those (apparently like yourself) who see parties as more important than constituents when it comes to an MP's loyalties. I do not hold with that and most people would agree that an MP should serve their constituents and their conscience not their party and their own vested interests.
You're strawmanning.
An MP's constituents vote for them based on the platform they stand on, i.e. the party manifesto they signed up to (alongside potential variations the candidate makes clear during said campaign).
Their constituents voted for them on the basis that they would (in broad terms) pursue the things they stood on. It's a curious definition of serving them to then go against that common platform you stood on.
The "bring forward" always relates to the house of commons.
- They planned to "bring forward" the Referendum Bill, including both AV and constituency reduction. Strictly speaking there was only a commitment to whip on the AV part, so if the LibDems had chosen to amend it at this point it would have been against the spirit of the agreement, but technically ok
- Lords reform: they pledged to establish a committee (DONE) to bring forward proposals for reform (DONE)... a few details set out on likely proposals (not important)... the appointments in the interim to create a house reflective of the 2010 GE vote share (DONE, at least for the LibDems)
I'm not aware of any other cases of the HoC rejecting the decision of the Boundary Commission once the mandate has been set. Don't forget that this body is independent and apolitical. Effectively the LibDems were throwing their toys out of the pram.
You can view it two ways Charles. Either bring forward meant voting support for something or it doesn't.
If it does then by voting down the Lords reform the Tories broke it, and the Lib Dems broke it in response by rejecting the reduction in seat numbers.
If it doesn't then the Tories broke nothing by bringing forward the proposals and voting them down, and the Lib Dems broke nothing by bringing forward the boundary proposals and then voting them down.
It's impressively farcical to try and have it both ways.
The boundary commission made recommendation based on the Tories parameters, voting them down was a rejection of those paramaters.
Boundary commission was not linked to Lords reform in any way. Clegg stated that publicly.
It was explicitly linked to the AV referendum. Which the Tories delivered.
Let's say, for instance, that Mike's deal of PR without a referendum in return for an EU referendum is the next agreement. The Tories deliver on the PR. Then the LibDems welsh on the EU vote. That's the equivalent.
Basically - sophistry aside - the Lib Dems broke their word because they believed that it was in their political interest to do so. The rest is self-justificatory bullshit.
"THE emergence of three-dimensional (3D) printing will have a revolutionary effect on manufacturing, but it may be equally disruptive for firms that make much of their living warehousing and delivering spare parts for companies. Now, one of the biggest delivery firms, UPS, is going to test 3D printing in its stores":
Boundary commission was not linked to Lords reform in any way. Clegg stated that publicly.
It was explicitly linked to the AV referendum. Which the Tories delivered.
Let's say, for instance, that Mike's deal of PR without a referendum in return for an EU referendum is the next agreement. The Tories deliver on the PR. Then the LibDems welsh on the EU vote. That's the equivalent.
Basically - sophistry aside - the Lib Dems broke their word because they believed that it was in their political interest to do so. The rest is self-justificatory bullshit.
It's wasn't linked, it is directly comparable.
In terms of sophistry, you're trying to argue that 'bring forward' means voting support on one thing, but not on another.
Your analogy is false because it ignores that the situation hinges on "bring forward".
If 'bring forward' means voting support then the Tories reneged first on Lords reform.
If 'bring forward' doesn't mean voting support then the Tories and the Lib Dems were equally entitled not to vote in favour of the issues they helped 'bring forward'.
Basically, Charles and the Tories are trying to do textual acrobatics to suggest that the same phrase in the same document were never supposed to be taken to mean the same thing.
Or claim that one party voting down something it committed to 'bring forward' is completely different and not comparable to another party voting down something it committed to 'bring forward'.
Boundary commission was not linked to Lords reform in any way. Clegg stated that publicly.
It was explicitly linked to the AV referendum. Which the Tories delivered.
Let's say, for instance, that Mike's deal of PR without a referendum in return for an EU referendum is the next agreement. The Tories deliver on the PR. Then the LibDems welsh on the EU vote. That's the equivalent.
Basically - sophistry aside - the Lib Dems broke their word because they believed that it was in their political interest to do so. The rest is self-justificatory bullshit.
It's wasn't linked, it is directly comparable.
In terms of sophistry, you're trying to argue that 'bring forward' means voting support on one thing, but not on another.
Your analogy is false because it ignores that the situation hinges on "bring forward".
If 'bring forward' means voting support then the Tories reneged first on Lords reform.
If 'bring forward' doesn't mean voting support then the Tories and the Lib Dems were equally entitled not to vote in favour of the issues they helped 'bring forward'.
Basically, Charles and the Tories are trying to do textual acrobatics to suggest that the same phrase in the same document were never supposed to be taken to mean the same thing.
Or claim that one party voting down something it committed to 'bring forward' is completely different and not comparable to another party voting down something it committed to 'bring forward'.
The AV referendum and the boundary reforms were in the same Bill, and the same Act of Parliament.
You don't think that constitutes linkage?
The Lib Dems voted for the reforms when it passed into law. And then voted against the report and made clear they would vote against all reports. You don't think that constitutes a change of mind.
Just eat it up. The Lib Dems did what was politically in their interest. And to do so they broke their word. It happens all the time, but you need to accept that it makes them less trustworthy in future.
Lets remember that the minutiae of AV and PR were debated to the point of boring us all to death in the run up to the AV Referendum on this site. But as I said earlier, AV or PR might be very different to the anoraks on this site, they simple ain't to the general public who like the clear and easy to understand FPTP system we already enjoy. They know how it works, they know how to tactically vote using this system, and they like the result that it more often than not gives us a clear majority Government rather than endless Coalitions who carve up deals AFTER the votes have been counted.
The British electorate don't like change outside choosing a party to govern them, they view a simple voting system like FPTP as a major positive. Too many on this site forget the disaster that was the 2007 Holyrood election, and how it ended up causing enough confusion to see over a hundred thousand spoilt ballot papers. The Scots will vote No to an Indy Referendum, and the UK electorate will vote No to leaving the EU, but they will appreciate the politicians who asked their opinion rather than just ignoring it and doing what suits them best. And this anti tipster was IIRC, third in the AV Referendum vote prediction contest on PB!
The electorate voted PR into the long grass with a resounding No in a referendum just a couple of years ago, the Libdems really need to accept that and get over it.
But AV isn't quite PR.
I seem to recall a post of yours at the time of the referendum urging people to vote No because AV was not PR .
The AV referendum and the boundary reforms were in the same Bill, and the same Act of Parliament.
You don't think that constitutes linkage?
The Lib Dems voted for the reforms when it passed into law. And then voted against the report and made clear they would vote against all reports. You don't think that constitutes a change of mind.
Just eat it up. The Lib Dems did what was politically in their interest. And to do so they broke their word. It happens all the time, but you need to accept that it makes them less trustworthy in future.
I meant that the Lords reform and the boundary proposals were not linked but comparable.
Eat it up yourself, you keep trying to drag things away from the basic question of what "bring forward" actually means because you're trying to have it both ways.
Does it mean voting support or not?
The Lib Dems did to the Tories what the Tories did to them first.
They voted down something they'd committed to bring forward.
I can add nothing to this debate. But strangely will comment anyway:
1. There is about the same chance of PR without a referendum as me becoming US President. (Hint: I'm not going to become US President)
2. Was there any form of House of Lords reform that was likely to be acceptable to the mass of Conservative MPs, that would (as the coalition agreement suggested) be broadly proportional? If there was no acceptable reform then the the Liberal Democrats had the right to feel miffed: essentially David Cameron had promised something he was unable to deliver. (Does anyone think Nick Clegg left the coalition negotiations without the belief that he had been promised HoL reform?)
I continue to believe that Cameron should have continued to push forward with HoL reform that he believed was right, and dared the Liberal Democrats to vote it down. That he did not suggests that he was unable to deliver even the most limited of reforms - so desperate was the Conservative Right to deliver a bloody nose to Cameron and to the junior coalition partners.
Now: was striking down boundary reform a proportional response? Perhaps, perhaps not. I suspect that Nick Clegg recognised he could no more deliver his backbenchers than David Cameron could deliver his. Voting themselves out of a job (every reduction in seats numbers falls disproportionately on smaller parties for obvious reasons) was not something the Liberal Democrat MPs were likely to do.
The AV referendum and the boundary reforms were in the same Bill, and the same Act of Parliament.
You don't think that constitutes linkage?
The Lib Dems voted for the reforms when it passed into law. And then voted against the report and made clear they would vote against all reports. You don't think that constitutes a change of mind.
Just eat it up. The Lib Dems did what was politically in their interest. And to do so they broke their word. It happens all the time, but you need to accept that it makes them less trustworthy in future.
I meant that the Lords reform and the boundary proposals were not linked but comparable.
Eat it up yourself, you keep trying to drag things away from the basic question of what "bring forward" actually means because you're trying to have it both ways.
Does it mean voting support or not?
The Lib Dems did to the Tories what the Tories did to them first.
They voted down something they'd committed to bring forward.
Those are the bare bones of what happened.
No. The Lib Dems voted for the Act. They then frustrated the deal in the detail - for reasons that were quite clearly seen as the time as politically motivated. It was an attempt to blackmail members of the House of Commons to vote for a half-baked proposal.
Everything else is excuses.
But we are not going to agree - you are a Lib Dem loyalist. I am a conservative, but not a member of the party, or a particular supporter of anyone.
The AV referendum and the boundary reforms were in the same Bill, and the same Act of Parliament.
You don't think that constitutes linkage?
The Lib Dems voted for the reforms when it passed into law. And then voted against the report and made clear they would vote against all reports. You don't think that constitutes a change of mind.
Just eat it up. The Lib Dems did what was politically in their interest. And to do so they broke their word. It happens all the time, but you need to accept that it makes them less trustworthy in future.
I meant that the Lords reform and the boundary proposals were not linked but comparable.
Eat it up yourself, you keep trying to drag things away from the basic question of what "bring forward" actually means because you're trying to have it both ways.
Does it mean voting support or not?
The Lib Dems did to the Tories what the Tories did to them first.
They voted down something they'd committed to bring forward.
Those are the bare bones of what happened.
No. The Lib Dems voted for the Act. They then frustrated the deal in the detail - for reasons that were quite clearly seen as the time as politically motivated. It was an attempt to blackmail members of the House of Commons to vote for a half-baked proposal.
Everything else is excuses.
But we are not going to agree - you are a Lib Dem loyalist. I am a conservative, but not a member of the party, or a particular supporter of anyone.
They blocked it, at a later stage sure, but they blocked it just as the Tories blocked Lords reform. At a later stage sure, but are you basing your complaint entirely on the timing of it being blocked?
Bring forward means bring forward, everything else is spin.
The proposal was at least twice baked, since it was re-shaped to be as palatable as possible to Tory rebels. Even then Cameron couldn't deliver the votes and the rebels made it clear that not only did they oppose these proposals but democratic reform of the Lords of any type, despite their own manifesto committing to 'build consensus in favour of a mainly elected House of Lords"
You may not be a party member, but that certainly hasn't left you impartial or unpartisan.
Comments
"First lasagne plot ...now barbecoup"
LABOUR power couple Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper have been accused of plotting against ailing leader Ed Miliband — by attending a summer barbecue with local activists.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5055263/Ed-Balls-accused-of-party-move-against-Ed-Miliband.html
The headline's about the only decent thing in the story.....if the Balls are plotting a leadership coup, local party activists is probably not the best place to start....
As a second point, people largely vote by party name. Such is the reality, the members are nominated representatives of their party to the community as well as representatives of the community to parliament. If a member intends to rebel against his party more often, or on particular issues then he should announce that when standing.
Invaded by Britain's Royal Navy in 1708 during the War of the Spanish Succession, Minorca temporarily became a British possession. Britain took possession in 1713 under the terms of the Article XI of the Treaty of Utrecht. Under the governorship of General Richard Kane, this period saw the island's capital moved to Port Mahon, and a naval base established in that town's harbour.
During the Seven Years' War, Spain regained the island in 1756 after the Battle of Minorca. British resistance persisted at Port Mahon, but the garrison was forced to capitulate under honourable terms, including free passage back to Britain, on 29 June of that same year. Thanks to the Treaty of Paris (1763), the British returned to the island again following Britain's victory in the Seven Years' War. During the American War of Independence, the British were defeated for a second time, in this instance by a combination of French and Spanish forces, which regained the island after a long siege of St. Philip's Castle in Port Mahon on 5 February 1782. The British ceded the island back to Spain the next year in the Treaty of Versailles. Minorca was invaded by the British once again in 1798, during the French Revolutionary Wars, but it was finally and permanently repossessed by Spain by the terms of the Treaty of Amiens in 1802. The British influence can still be seen in local architecture with elements such as sash windows.
As the rest of the Balearic Islands, Minorca was not occupied by the French during the Peninsular War, as it was successfully protected by the Royal Navy, this time allied to Spain.
[..]
After the Nationalist victory in the Battle of Minorca in February 1939, the British Navy assisted in a peaceful transfer of power in Minorca and the evacuation of some political refugees aboard HMS Devonshire.
I don't think Chuka has got that - it's just a faintly hypocritical move (although blown out of all significance. If anything the fact that you can take money from someone and then still campaign against one specific interest of theirs is a good thing on balance).
I doubt this will do him any more harm than Ecclestone did to Blair. It's just be something that committed opponents lambaste him with
On a practical note good luck selling an increase of millions upon millions of state funding to parties in order to hold these selections.
When the Tories keep their promises (e.g. AV or bringing forward Lords reform) but it doesn't go the way the LibDems hope, you get lots of attempts to try and blame the Tories for breaking their word.
The hitch is that the primary voters don't pay much attention to the detail and the big parties are owned by the interest groups that fund them, so the voters don't really have as much control as they feel like they do.
This seems like a no-brainer for the bigger UK parties as a way to fight off the growing threats to their duopoly. But like a lot of entrenched incumbents that lose their market share to nimbler, disruptive competitors, I don't suppose they'll react to the threat until it's too late.
Then were apparently surprised at suggestions that the same phrase in the same document should mean the same thing.
But in reality they're always going to form factions and cut deals.
Scottish local government is a case in point - under FPTP about 50% of voters got who they voted for elected. Under STV about 75% of voters get their first choice candidate elected.
There is no perfect electoral system - the length of the ballot paper is a practical limiting factor.
"A senior Ukip politician has been recorded telling activists that Britain should not be sending aid to "bongo bongo land".
Godfrey Bloom, a Ukip member of the European parliament, made the comments to a meeting of supporters in the West Midlands. He suggested foreigners used aid to "buy Ray-Ban sunglasses" and "apartments in Paris".
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/06/ukip-godfrey-bloom-bongo-bongo-land
- They planned to "bring forward" the Referendum Bill, including both AV and constituency reduction. Strictly speaking there was only a commitment to whip on the AV part, so if the LibDems had chosen to amend it at this point it would have been against the spirit of the agreement, but technically ok
- Lords reform: they pledged to establish a committee (DONE) to bring forward proposals for reform (DONE)... a few details set out on likely proposals (not important)... the appointments in the interim to create a house reflective of the 2010 GE vote share (DONE, at least for the LibDems)
I'm not aware of any other cases of the HoC rejecting the decision of the Boundary Commission once the mandate has been set. Don't forget that this body is independent and apolitical. Effectively the LibDems were throwing their toys out of the pram.
But people still get it wrong, I assume deliberately, since few on here are stupid.
Cameron did not commit to whip through Lords Reform because he knew he couldn't deliver his backbenchers. So he never promised to.
I am sure that it used to be said that it would be impossible to enforce a ban on overt bribing of MPs and yet today it is generally accepted that it only happens in very few cases and that those who do indulge in the sorts of bribery/lobbying we have heard of recently will be found out.
Of course there are those (apparently like yourself) who see parties as more important than constituents when it comes to an MP's loyalties. I do not hold with that and most people would agree that an MP should serve their constituents and their conscience not their party and their own vested interests.
If it does then by voting down the Lords reform the Tories broke it, and the Lib Dems broke it in response by rejecting the reduction in seat numbers.
If it doesn't then the Tories broke nothing by bringing forward the proposals and voting them down, and the Lib Dems broke nothing by bringing forward the boundary proposals and then voting them down.
It's impressively farcical to try and have it both ways.
The boundary commission made recommendation based on the Tories parameters, voting them down was a rejection of those paramaters.
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/judge-mental-judge-nigel-peters/
An MP's constituents vote for them based on the platform they stand on, i.e. the party manifesto they signed up to (alongside potential variations the candidate makes clear during said campaign).
Their constituents voted for them on the basis that they would (in broad terms) pursue the things they stood on. It's a curious definition of serving them to then go against that common platform you stood on.
It was explicitly linked to the AV referendum. Which the Tories delivered.
Let's say, for instance, that Mike's deal of PR without a referendum in return for an EU referendum is the next agreement. The Tories deliver on the PR. Then the LibDems welsh on the EU vote. That's the equivalent.
Basically - sophistry aside - the Lib Dems broke their word because they believed that it was in their political interest to do so. The rest is self-justificatory bullshit.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/08/3d-printing
In terms of sophistry, you're trying to argue that 'bring forward' means voting support on one thing, but not on another.
Your analogy is false because it ignores that the situation hinges on "bring forward".
If 'bring forward' means voting support then the Tories reneged first on Lords reform.
If 'bring forward' doesn't mean voting support then the Tories and the Lib Dems were equally entitled not to vote in favour of the issues they helped 'bring forward'.
Basically, Charles and the Tories are trying to do textual acrobatics to suggest that the same phrase in the same document were never supposed to be taken to mean the same thing.
Or claim that one party voting down something it committed to 'bring forward' is completely different and not comparable to another party voting down something it committed to 'bring forward'.
You don't think that constitutes linkage?
The Lib Dems voted for the reforms when it passed into law. And then voted against the report and made clear they would vote against all reports. You don't think that constitutes a change of mind.
Just eat it up. The Lib Dems did what was politically in their interest. And to do so they broke their word. It happens all the time, but you need to accept that it makes them less trustworthy in future.
The British electorate don't like change outside choosing a party to govern them, they view a simple voting system like FPTP as a major positive. Too many on this site forget the disaster that was the 2007 Holyrood election, and how it ended up causing enough confusion to see over a hundred thousand spoilt ballot papers. The Scots will vote No to an Indy Referendum, and the UK electorate will vote No to leaving the EU, but they will appreciate the politicians who asked their opinion rather than just ignoring it and doing what suits them best. And this anti tipster was IIRC, third in the AV Referendum vote prediction contest on PB!
Eat it up yourself, you keep trying to drag things away from the basic question of what "bring forward" actually means because you're trying to have it both ways.
Does it mean voting support or not?
The Lib Dems did to the Tories what the Tories did to them first.
They voted down something they'd committed to bring forward.
Those are the bare bones of what happened.
1. There is about the same chance of PR without a referendum as me becoming US President. (Hint: I'm not going to become US President)
2. Was there any form of House of Lords reform that was likely to be acceptable to the mass of Conservative MPs, that would (as the coalition agreement suggested) be broadly proportional? If there was no acceptable reform then the the Liberal Democrats had the right to feel miffed: essentially David Cameron had promised something he was unable to deliver. (Does anyone think Nick Clegg left the coalition negotiations without the belief that he had been promised HoL reform?)
I continue to believe that Cameron should have continued to push forward with HoL reform that he believed was right, and dared the Liberal Democrats to vote it down. That he did not suggests that he was unable to deliver even the most limited of reforms - so desperate was the Conservative Right to deliver a bloody nose to Cameron and to the junior coalition partners.
Now: was striking down boundary reform a proportional response? Perhaps, perhaps not. I suspect that Nick Clegg recognised he could no more deliver his backbenchers than David Cameron could deliver his. Voting themselves out of a job (every reduction in seats numbers falls disproportionately on smaller parties for obvious reasons) was not something the Liberal Democrat MPs were likely to do.
Everything else is excuses.
But we are not going to agree - you are a Lib Dem loyalist. I am a conservative, but not a member of the party, or a particular supporter of anyone.
Bring forward means bring forward, everything else is spin.
The proposal was at least twice baked, since it was re-shaped to be as palatable as possible to Tory rebels. Even then Cameron couldn't deliver the votes and the rebels made it clear that not only did they oppose these proposals but democratic reform of the Lords of any type, despite their own manifesto committing to 'build consensus in favour of a mainly elected House of Lords"
You may not be a party member, but that certainly hasn't left you impartial or unpartisan.