But if it is true that the current boundaries favour the Tories when did they change in their favour?
If the boundaries favour the Tories how do we explain the fact that 36% voted Labour and they got a majority of 66, and in 2010 36% got the Tories no majority at all?
And how is the point answered that if Labour seats are mainly in big cities, it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than it does to elect a Tory MP.
I refer to an article in Labour's New Statesman in 2015 which admits that the current boundaries are indeed a partial -but not total explanation -for Labour's electoral advantage. Labour does get more MPs for the same percentage of the vote than the Tories.
Very simple. The collapse of the LDs has been the biggest driver of the electoral system now favouring the Tories.
Quoting GR2005 no longer relevant.
It is relevant to illustrate that the electoral results vary with the action of the voters. A bias today cannot be forecast to be the same bias in the future unless the voters are static and identical.
The collapse of the LDs is not an example of the boundaries or the system favouring the Tories. It is an example of political circumstances favouring the Tories which is quite different.
The collapse of the LDs also harmed the Tories in 2017 since a lot of their support went to Labour, depriving the Tories of a majority even though they polled their highest since 1987.
There have always been little awks. Great awks were extinct. Until today. This looks like great awks.
May’s far too weak to take any action against Steve Baker and Baker himself will not resign. This will pass and the accelerating degradation of public life will continue unabated. Anyone can do anything and will not be held accountable if they have the ability to cause the PM problems.
The audio makes clear that Baker lied, and perhaps Jacob Rees Mogg encouraged him in that lie.
We can now dismiss anything either of them has to say as unreliable witnesses.
What will Labour do if in 2022 it loses a fourth general election in a row?
Of course, Labour has only been out of power for seven and a half years. Now is the equivalent of 1986 - with eleven more years of wilderness ahead - if we're comparing it to 1979-1997.
A party is often judged by the number of elections it loses not by the number of years it is out of power. The Liberals had only been out of power for 6 years in 1924, yet it had lost 4 elections:1918, 1922, 1923, 1924, -and it was widely seen a finished party. Indeed it never won a general election again.
But I repeat my question: what will Labour do if it loses a fourth general election in a row? Labour constantly changed its leader 1979-97 and only returned to power after it had purged Militant -the equivalent then of Momentum. Or will Corbyn do a lap of self congratulatory honour, announce that he will carry on into his 80s and the members decide that it is the voters and not they who are at fault.?
You seem to believe that should Labour lose another GE that the membership will automatically return to the New Labour blue brick road of Blair. I am almost embarrassed to have to advise you that you would have more chance of the party members standing to attention at conference by your playing Jerusalem on a kazoo up your backside. At least 450,000 of the new and re-signed membership out of the 600,000 will firmly disagree with you, that is called democracy. I will defend your right are have the freedom to speak, but you also should understand that others have the freedom to ignore you if they think that what you say is rubbish
But if it is true that the current boundaries favour the Tories when did they change in their favour?
If the boundaries favour the Tories how do we explain the fact that 36% voted Labour and they got a majority of 66, and in 2010 36% got the Tories no majority at all?
And how is the point answered that if Labour seats are mainly in big cities, it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than it does to elect a Tory MP.
I refer to an article in Labour's New Statesman in 2015 which admits that the current boundaries are indeed a partial -but not total explanation -for Labour's electoral advantage. Labour does get more MPs for the same percentage of the vote than the Tories.
Very simple. The collapse of the LDs has been the biggest driver of the electoral system now favouring the Tories.
Quoting GR2005 no longer relevant.
It is relevant to illustrate that the electoral results vary with the action of the voters. A bias today cannot be forecast to be the same bias in the future unless the voters are static and identical.
The collapse of the LDs is not an example of the boundaries or the system favouring the Tories. It is an example of political circumstances favouring the Tories which is quite different.
The collapse of the LDs also harmed the Tories in 2017 since a lot of their support went to Labour, depriving the Tories of a majority even though they polled their highest since 1987.
The point is that, under our capricious voting system, how any party's votes translate into seats depends not only on how many votes they get, and where, but how the other parties' votes are distributed. When the generally higher LD vote in Tory Home Counties seats could net them a few gains themselves, this hit the Tories. But LD votes without MPs enables the Tories to hold more of their seats with lower percentages of the vote.
The SNP/Labour situation in Scotland is not dissimilar
On topic, it seems unlikely that whatever the result at the next election that any swing will be on a uniform national basis. With the last election seeming to have swung constituency by constituency for Brexit-related reasons, it seems unlikely that the next election will see the current sets of marginals swing in a uniform manner.
That’s interesting. I bet against UNS last year and it worked out quite well, but I’ve been thinking that we’re unlikely to see anything quite as severe at the next election. But I guess a lot will depend upon the circumstances in which the next election is held.
Inspired by this thread, I'm having a more detailed look. I'll report back, perhaps in a thread header if the muse takes me.
What will Labour do if in 2022 it loses a fourth general election in a row?
Of course, Labour has only been out of power for seven and a half years. Now is the equivalent of 1986 - with eleven more years of wilderness ahead - if we're comparing it to 1979-1997.
A party is often judged by the number of elections it loses not by the number of years it is out of power. The Liberals had only been out of power for 6 years in 1924, yet it had lost 4 elections:1918, 1922, 1923, 1924, -and it was widely seen a finished party. Indeed it never won a general election again.
But I repeat my question: what will Labour do if it loses a fourth general election in a row? Labour constantly changed its leader 1979-97 and only returned to power after it had purged Militant -the equivalent then of Momentum. Or will Corbyn do a lap of self congratulatory honour, announce that he will carry on into his 80s and the members decide that it is the voters and not they who are at fault.?
Well, I don't agree with your premise. As far as the man on the Clapham Omnibus is concerned, we've had a Conservative led government for seven years or so. We haven't even had the 1987 General Election in their book.
Think of of it this way: when the Labour Party got back into power in 1997, how many of it MPs dated back to the last Labour administration? I reckon it would be fewer than 20. How many Labour MPs today were in the House in 2010. The majority of them. Change happens when people change. And the Labour Party of 2018 hasn't really changed from the one of 2010.
And another thing... the Labour Party ran on a "hard left" platform in 1983, and didn't get that centrist in 1987. The electorate punished them for it, and they ended up with pretty derisory numbers of seats.
If the Labour Party of 2022 loses the election with 280 seats, that's a very different outcome to if they lose it with 180 seats. In the former case, "one more heave" will likely be the mantra; in the latter, we're likely to see more radical change.
The problem with judging it only from the viewpoint of years out of power rather than elections is that it ignores the perception that a party is rejected four times.
In 1992 Labour lost for a fourth time after being out of power for 13 years. In 2022, if Labour loses for a fourth time, it will have been out of power for 12 years. A difference of only one year. (Remember there are more 5 year parliaments now, most were 4 years 1979-97).
If Labour loses for a fourth time having been out of power for 12 years, it cannot (as it did not in 1992) simply declare business as usual. Corbynism will be dead.
But if it is true that the current boundaries favour the Tories when did they change in their favour?
If the boundaries favour the Tories how do we explain the fact that 36% voted Labour and they got a majority of 66, and in 2010 36% got the Tories no majority at all?
And how is the point answered that if Labour seats are mainly in big cities, it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than it does to elect a Tory MP.
I refer to an article in Labour's New Statesman in 2015 which admits that the current boundaries are indeed a partial -but not total explanation -for Labour's electoral advantage. Labour does get more MPs for the same percentage of the vote than the Tories.
Very simple. The collapse of the LDs has been the biggest driver of the electoral system now favouring the Tories.
Quoting GR2005 no longer relevant.
It is relevant to illustrate that the electoral results vary with the action of the voters. A bias today cannot be forecast to be the same bias in the future unless the voters are static and identical.
The collapse of the LDs is not an example of the boundaries or the system favouring the Tories. It is an example of political circumstances favouring the Tories which is quite different.
The collapse of the LDs also harmed the Tories in 2017 since a lot of their support went to Labour, depriving the Tories of a majority even though they polled their highest since 1987.
My intention was to say quoting 2005 is relevant.
The system has managed to give both major parties a benefit. I don't know if LibDems ever had over representation for the number of votes cast, but the system has shown itself to be surprisingly reactive to voter changes.
But if it is true that the current boundaries favour the Tories when did they change in their favour?
If the boundaries favour the Tories how do we explain the fact that 36% voted Labour and they got a majority of 66, and in 2010 36% got the Tories no majority at all?
And how is the point answered that if Labour seats are mainly in big cities, it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than it does to elect a Tory MP.
I refer to an article in Labour's New Statesman in 2015 which admits that the current boundaries are indeed a partial -but not total explanation -for Labour's electoral advantage. Labour does get more MPs for the same percentage of the vote than the Tories.
It was a consequence of the 2015 election which saw big Labour losses to the SNP and substantial Tory gains from the LibDems. Next time I expect Labour to go a long way to reversing its losses to the SNP . No evidence at present that the LibDems will recoup their losses to the Tories.
But if it is true that the current boundaries favour the Tories when did they change in their favour?
If the boundaries favour the Tories how do we explain the fact that 36% voted Labour and they got a majority of 66, and in 2010 36% got the Tories no majority at all?
And how is the point answered that if Labour seats are mainly in big cities, it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than it does to elect a Tory MP.
I refer to an article in Labour's New Statesman in 2015 which admits that the current boundaries are indeed a partial -but not total explanation -for Labour's electoral advantage. Labour does get more MPs for the same percentage of the vote than the Tories.
Very simple. The collapse of the LDs has been the biggest driver of the electoral system now favouring the Tories.
Quoting GR2005 no longer relevant.
It is relevant to illustrate that the electoral results vary with the action of the voters. A bias today cannot be forecast to be the same bias in the future unless the voters are static and identical.
The collapse of the LDs is not an example of the boundaries or the system favouring the Tories. It is an example of political circumstances favouring the Tories which is quite different.
The collapse of the LDs also harmed the Tories in 2017 since a lot of their support went to Labour, depriving the Tories of a majority even though they polled their highest since 1987.
There was virtually no change in the LD vote from GE15 to GE17.
It is bollocks to talk about the highest CON vote share in 87. CON vote went up 5.8% - LAB vote went up 9.8% are the numbers that matter.
What will Labour do if in 2022 it loses a fourth general election in a row?
Of course, Labour has only been out of power for seven and a half years. Now is the equivalent of 1986 - with eleven more years of wilderness ahead - if we're comparing it to 1979-1997.
A party is often judged by the number of elections it loses not by the number of years it is out of power. The Liberals had only been out of power for 6 years in 1924, yet it had lost 4 elections:1918, 1922, 1923, 1924, -and it was widely seen a finished party. Indeed it never won a general election again.
But I repeat my question: what will Labour do if it loses a fourth general election in a row? Labour constantly changed its leader 1979-97 and only returned to power after it had purged Militant -the equivalent then of Momentum. Or will Corbyn do a lap of self congratulatory honour, announce that he will carry on into his 80s and the members decide that it is the voters and not they who are at fault.?
You seem to believe that should Labour lose another GE that the membership will automatically return to the New Labour blue brick road of Blair. I am almost embarrassed to have to advise you that you would have more chance of the party members standing to attention at conference by your playing Jerusalem on a kazoo up your backside. At least 450,000 of the new and re-signed membership out of the 600,000 will firmly disagree with you, that is called democracy. I will defend your right are have the freedom to speak, but you also should understand that others have the freedom to ignore you if they think that what you say is rubbish
No, I dont think it would -or should -return to Blairism. Blairism and Corbynism are both factions which have captured Labour from the mainstream of Attlee Wilson and Smith. What I believe will happen if Labour loses for a fourth time is that Corbynism will come to an end. No return to Blairism, but a return to mainstream Labour -True Labour-which has not controlled the Labour Party since 1994.
You talk about democracy. Remember, Labour MPs represent millions of voters who far outnumber the millions of party members. Remember too that those party members are not all hard line Corbynistas. Most of them will in the end tire of losing elections. General elections are also about democracy, and if the voters keep rejecting Labour, Labourt members -who allegedly believe in democracy, should listen to the democratic will of the People.Remember too, since you are so fond of glibly referring to democracy that Momentum members were elected to the NEC recently on a 12% turnout. Some democracy.
But if it is true that the current boundaries favour the Tories when did they change in their favour?
If the boundaries favour the Tories how do we explain the fact that 36% voted Labour and they got a majority of 66, and in 2010 36% got the Tories no majority at all?
And how is the point answered that if Labour seats are mainly in big cities, it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than it does to elect a Tory MP.
I refer to an article in Labour's New Statesman in 2015 which admits that the current boundaries are indeed a partial -but not total explanation -for Labour's electoral advantage. Labour does get more MPs for the same percentage of the vote than the Tories.
In principle it is quite simple. If votes aren't distributed evenly then the result will always favour one party or another, and who it favours is pretty random. UKIP did particularly badly in 2015 for example. If voters were identical in every constituency every general election would result in a house comprised of only one party.
On topic, it seems unlikely that whatever the result at the next election that any swing will be on a uniform national basis. With the last election seeming to have swung constituency by constituency for Brexit-related reasons, it seems unlikely that the next election will see the current sets of marginals swing in a uniform manner.
That’s interesting. I bet against UNS last year and it worked out quite well, but I’ve been thinking that we’re unlikely to see anything quite as severe at the next election. But I guess a lot will depend upon the circumstances in which the next election is held.
Corbyn and May both did very well in numbers of votes and both IMO constructed unusual voting coalitions (which Brexit may have helped)
Next time round I suspect there will be at least one different leader. Also the situation in Scotland will likely be different? Plus things might go back to more normal voting coalitions...
So all in all I think UNS from where we are won’t hold.
What will Labour do if in 2022 it loses a fourth general election in a row?
Of course, Labour has only been out of power for seven and a half years. Now is the equivalent of 1986 - with eleven more years of wilderness ahead - if we're comparing it to 1979-1997.
A party is often judged by the number of elections it loses not by the number of years it is out of power. The Liberals had only been out of power for 6 years in 1924, yet it had lost 4 elections:1918, 1922, 1923, 1924, -and it was widely seen a finished party. Indeed it never won a general election again.
But I repeat my question: what will Labour do if it loses a fourth general election in a row? Labour constantly changed its leader 1979-97 and only returned to power after it had purged Militant -the equivalent then of Momentum. Or will Corbyn do a lap of self congratulatory honour, announce that he will carry on into his 80s and the members decide that it is the voters and not they who are at fault.?
Well, I don't agree with your premise. As far as the man on the Clapham Omnibus is concerned, we've had a Conservative led government for seven years or so. We haven't even had the 1987 General Election in their book.
Think of of it this way: when the Labour Party got back into power in 1997, how many of it MPs dated back to the last Labour administration? I reckon it would be fewer than 20. How many Labour MPs today were in the House in 2010. The majority of them. Change happens when people change. And the Labour Party of 2018 hasn't really changed from the one of 2010.
And another thing... the Labour Party ran on a "hard left" platform in 1983, and didn't get that centrist in 1987. The electorate punished them for it, and they ended up with pretty derisory numbers of seats.
If the Labour Party of 2022 loses the election with 280 seats, that's a very different outcome to if they lose it with 180 seats. In the former case, "one more heave" will likely be the mantra; in the latter, we're likely to see more radical change.
We are only a few days away from having had a Tory-led Government for 7 years and 8 months. In terms of the 1979 Government we are at the equivalent point to the cusp of 1986/1987 - just a few weeks from the Greenwich by election lost by Labour to Rosie Barnes of the SDP. Had it not been for that by election , the 1987 result might well have been a fair bit closer because its main effect was to boost the Alliance at Labour expense in the Spring of 1987 whilst helping the Tories to extend their polling lead. Had that not occurred , the Tory lead might have been too small to give Thatcher the confidence to opt for an election in June that year.
I think when (yes when) Labour loses the 2022 election -its fourth defeat in succession, it will mean the end of both Corbynism and Blairism (the two factions which grabbed the party from either end after 1994), and there will be a return to the mainstream Labour of Attlee Wilson and Smith which has not controlled Labour since 1994.
Corbyn supporters seem to think they have the party membership in the bag. But I believe that the majority of Labour members even now are not hard line Corbynistas, and that the majority of them will tire of losing elections -without wishing to return to Blairism -and will return to mainstream Labour of neither Corbynista hard left, or Blairite right. A return to the Labour of Wilson Attlee and Smith, and I think someone like Emily Thornberry or another will take it there.
There will also have to be a hard and ruthless battle with Militant....sorry I mean Momentum.
The problem with that question is that the present system does not produce effective government. If you want evidence, look around you.
So your answer is to introduce a system which causes this sort of ineffective mess all the time rather than rarely
The problem with the present voting system is that it is an attempt to force people into one of two straight-jackets. The result is that the present Conservative Party (and the Labour Party too) is an unholy mish-mash of unreconciled and even antagonistic tendencies. As such, they cannot do anything without upsetting masses of their own supporters.
Both May`s Conservatives and Corbyn`s Labour are excellent examples of this. The only way they can win support is to be all things to all men while in opposition, and demonise the other group.
The Coalition Government was much stronger and much more sensible, and we need more governments like that.
But if it is true that the current boundaries favour the Tories when did they change in their favour?
If the boundaries favour the Tories how do we explain the fact that 36% voted Labour and they got a majority of 66, and in 2010 36% got the Tories no majority at all?
And how is the point answered that if Labour seats are mainly in big cities, it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than it does to elect a Tory MP.
I refer to an article in Labour's New Statesman in 2015 which admits that the current boundaries are indeed a partial -but not total explanation -for Labour's electoral advantage. Labour does get more MPs for the same percentage of the vote than the Tories.
In principle it is quite simple. If votes aren't distributed evenly then the result will always favour one party or another, and who it favours is pretty random. UKIP did particularly badly in 2015 for example. If voters were identical in every constituency every general election would result in a house comprised of only one party.
The shift away from class and toward age as the principal correlation with voting behaviour ought to make our voting system more unfair, for the reason you give (since class is more geographically heterogenous than age). It didn't, last time, because the vote shares for the two parties were so close. But an age-differentiated election in which one party or the other establishes a clear vote share lead is likely to lead to an overwhelming and disproportionate victory.
Isn't it more an issue with a London centric pro remain civil service that has very little understanding of the world or public attitudes outside the M25.
'Modern history' means it is not quite as vicious an analysis as might be expected.
Modern history is generally taken as beginning in the middle of the fifteenth century.
When I studied history late fifteenth early sixteenth century was indeed taken as the beginnings of the early modern period, but I don't think that everyday usage from regular people regards modern history in such broad terms. While I agree with that definition, i cannot help but think that most people reading it would not see the phrase modern history as applying across such a wide stretch of time, and thus limit its impact. Honestly, while more hyperbolic, simply saying worse in history would probably work better. Worst in UK history even better, since it clearly cuts off the period it applies to, while implying something even greater.
The Labour share is practically the same as the general election with this new ElectoralCalculus foreast, 41.1% as against 41.0%. Tories losing a bit to UKIP is the only significant change, but UKIP only contested half the seats last time.
The Labour share is practically the same as the general election with this new ElectoralCalculus foreast, 41.1% as against 41.0%. Tories losing a bit to UKIP is the only significant change, but UKIP only contested half the seats last time.
Tricky to see a kipper revival. Reading the tea leaves looks like May is quite popular amongst leavers still
Not particularly good news for Labour in Scotland according to the latest ElectoralCalculus polling average in Scotland, which has Labour staying at 7 seats, the SNP up 2 seats, and the Tories down 2 seats:
It is his final tweets that are the most instructive. And I quote:
Brexiters don't like the EU because its institutions get in the way of a national majority. They make radical changes of policy difficult, and government less responsive to the people's temporary will.
That is in fact their intended purpose. To secure peace and wealth in Europe by tempering the people's desires through institutions. They were created after the alternative was tested to destruction.
This can be read in a different way:
People don't like the EU because it reduces actual accountability, paying lip service to the democratic institutions of individual nations while actually rendering them useless via supranational institutions that are accountable, at best, to themselves and a limited elite, who are far more susceptible to takeover by narrow sectional interests than a broader polis.
(And he's right here with this line) That is, in fact, their intendend purpose.
To transfer power away from democratically accountable institutions and replace them with a narrow grouping of individuals who believe they know what's best for all of us. To, in effect, "temper the desires" of the proleteriat, who don't know what's good for them.
And as far as "the alternative was tested to destruction", let us remember that democracy is the least worst system of government.
But if it is true that the current boundaries favour the Tories when did they change in their favour?
If the boundaries favour the Tories how do we explain the fact that 36% voted Labour and they got a majority of 66, and in 2010 36% got the Tories no majority at all?
And how is the point answered that if Labour seats are mainly in big cities, it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than it does to elect a Tory MP.
I refer to an article in Labour's New Statesman in 2015 which admits that the current boundaries are indeed a partial -but not total explanation -for Labour's electoral advantage. Labour does get more MPs for the same percentage of the vote than the Tories.
In principle it is quite simple. If votes aren't distributed evenly then the result will always favour one party or another, and who it favours is pretty random. UKIP did particularly badly in 2015 for example. If voters were identical in every constituency every general election would result in a house comprised of only one party.
The shift away from class and toward age as the principal correlation with voting behaviour ought to make our voting system more unfair, for the reason you give (since class is more geographically heterogenous than age). It didn't, last time, because the vote shares for the two parties were so close. But an age-differentiated election in which one party or the other establishes a clear vote share lead is likely to lead to an overwhelming and disproportionate victory.
@rcs1000 makes some good points about past electorates rejecting left-wing manifestos. Adding those comments with your own shows why a left-wing manifesto may well be attractive to present electorates.
Past electorates had ring-side seats for the effects of communist governments. Present electorates do not have that experience.
I think the election of a left-wing government is very likely at the next GE, whenever that happens.
It will be really interesting to see how a left-wing government manages its policies in present-day circumstances. People have so much & take so much for granted. ISTM that in itself will constrain a left-wing government in unexpected ways.
It is his final tweets that are the most instructive. And I quote:
Brexiters don't like the EU because its institutions get in the way of a national majority. They make radical changes of policy difficult, and government less responsive to the people's temporary will.
That is in fact their intended purpose. To secure peace and wealth in Europe by tempering the people's desires through institutions. They were created after the alternative was tested to destruction.
This can be read in a different way:
People don't like the EU because it reduces actual accountability, paying lip service to the democratic institutions of individual nations while actually rendering them useless via supranational institutions that are accountable, at best, to themselves and a limited elite, who are far more susceptible to takeover by narrow sectional interests than a broader polis.
(And he's right here with this line) That is, in fact, their intendend purpose.
To transfer power away from democratically accountable institutions and replace them with a narrow grouping of individuals who believe they know what's best for all of us. To, in effect, "temper the desires" of the proleteriat, who don't know what's good for them.
And as far as "the alternative was tested to destruction", let us remember that democracy is the least worst system of government.
The alternative was brutal dictatorships that destroyed institutions, not democratic governance.
'Modern history' means it is not quite as vicious an analysis as might be expected.
Plainly, it isn't the worst government in modern history.
The rule is: no hyperbole is too strong when it comes to Brexit.
For sure, we've had economic collapse, food rotting in the fields, Scotland breaking away, and mass racism. When those have all proved false, where do you go from there?
At first reading it seems like they want to encourage debate about such pieces of art and challenge the way they have been read...by removing them, a surefire way to encourage debate. But it may well be more complicated.
Not particularly good news for Labour in Scotland according to the latest ElectoralCalculus polling average in Scotland, which has Labour staying at 7 seats, the SNP up 2 seats, and the Tories down 2 seats:
All this spin is just like when Remainers said they were going to halt the Brexit legislation.
If you're loud about it, it's because you don't have the numbers. If you trail something beforehand as being a huge intervention, it's because it isn't that significant.
A strange episode all round. Clearly Baker and Mogg arranged the question beforehand. To what end? To discredit the Treasury? Hardly seems necessary... the Brexiteers already don’t trust civil servants...
Substantial Labour gains at SNP expense would remove the Tory advantage alluded to here.
25 SLab gains from the SNP was your last (& much repeated) prediction wasn't it?
20 gains to take Labour to 25 - 30 seats in Scotland. I stand by that.
I asked you previously if you're a betting man but you didn't reply. Any update on that?
I have never been a betting man - despite my instincts re-Scotland having been correct in 2017 when I predicted 4 or 5 Labour MPs .
Strange then that you come to a site based around betting, though I'm sure your repeated predictions for major success for SLab and odd obsession with bastards are appreciated by some.
It is his final tweets that are the most instructive. And I quote:
Brexiters don't like the EU because its institutions get in the way of a national majority. They make radical changes of policy difficult, and government less responsive to the people's temporary will.
That is in fact their intended purpose. To secure peace and wealth in Europe by tempering the people's desires through institutions. They were created after the alternative was tested to destruction.
This can be read in a different way:
People don't like the EU because it reduces actual accountability, paying lip service to the democratic institutions of individual nations while actually rendering them useless via supranational institutions that are accountable, at best, to themselves and a limited elite, who are far more susceptible to takeover by narrow sectional interests than a broader polis.
(And he's right here with this line) That is, in fact, their intendend purpose.
To transfer power away from democratically accountable institutions and replace them with a narrow grouping of individuals who believe they know what's best for all of us. To, in effect, "temper the desires" of the proleteriat, who don't know what's good for them.
And as far as "the alternative was tested to destruction", let us remember that democracy is the least worst system of government.
The alternative was brutal dictatorships that destroyed institutions, not democratic governance.
Indeed. The original "thread" is an argument for benevolent dictatorship. Which of course left unchecked will eventually become a malevolent one. I would rather live in an imperfect world in which I have a say than a "perfect" one in which I have no voice.
I seriously struggle to see why we would want a trade deal with the EU which only covered goods at all. How could such a deal possibly work to our benefit given the trade balance? If they continue to allow free access for our service industries it just might be worth it having but it would still be seriously expensive.
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
If we accept you premise, slower growth is still not impoverishment.
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
It's just as well that the economy is perfuming well.
Sky continuing with their torrent of woes for TM but my instinct is telling me that this is doing her no harm and that she is garnering support for her negotiations from the public.
Last time I felt my instincts like this was the night of the GE when I became convinced she would not get a majority
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
It's just as well that the economy is perfuming well.
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
It's just as well that the economy is perfuming well.
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
It's just as well that the economy is perfuming well.
Yep. Smells great!
If somebody had said, immediately prior to the vote in 2016, that in the next 18 months, the economy overall would grow by 2.8%, that employment would be up by 400,000, that manufacturing would be up by 4%, that exports would surge, that public borrowing would fall sharply, this would have been dismissed as stupid Leave propaganda.
We spend much more on aid than Germany or France. We prefer to buy from ngos/UN/private sector whilst Germany prefers to do work in house. A cynic might say that Germany provides a lot of employment to German aid workers...
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
It's just as well that the economy is perfuming well.
Yep. Smells great!
If somebody had said, immediately prior to the vote in 2016, that in the next 18 months, the economy overall would grow by 2.8%, that employment would be up by 400,000, that manufacturing would be up by 4%, that exports would surge, that public borrowing would fall sharply, this would have been dismissed as stupid Leave propaganda.
Interesting. Of course, any form of customs union with the EU - whether it differs from the current arrangement or not - is a million miles from the 'Clean Brexit' Boris and co. were demanding several months back. So perhaps the Ultras, Rees-Mogg aside, have genuinely been put back in their box. We shall see.
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
It's just as well that the economy is perfuming well.
Yep. Smells great!
If somebody had said, immediately prior to the vote in 2016, that in the next 18 months, the economy overall would grow by 2.8%, that employment would be up by 400,000, that manufacturing would be up by 4%, that exports would surge, that public borrowing would fall sharply, this would have been dismissed as stupid Leave propaganda.
Indeed. Yet another demonstration that domestic policies (in this case depreciation) are of a completely different scale from any possible Brexit effects.
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
It's just as well that the economy is perfuming well.
Yep. Smells great!
If somebody had said, immediately prior to the vote in 2016, that in the next 18 months, the economy overall would grow by 2.8%, that employment would be up by 400,000, that manufacturing would be up by 4%, that exports would surge, that public borrowing would fall sharply, this would have been dismissed as stupid Leave propaganda.
The same could be said about expectations for the US and for the Eurozone. The fact remains that, in relative terms, the UK is lagging behind.
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
It's just as well that the economy is perfuming well.
Yep. Smells great!
If somebody had said, immediately prior to the vote in 2016, that in the next 18 months, the economy overall would grow by 2.8%, that employment would be up by 400,000, that manufacturing would be up by 4%, that exports would surge, that public borrowing would fall sharply, this would have been dismissed as stupid Leave propaganda.
A tribute to George Osborne's magnificent stewardship of the economy he bequeathed Mrs May.
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
It's just as well that the economy is perfuming well.
Yep. Smells great!
If somebody had said, immediately prior to the vote in 2016, that in the next 18 months, the economy overall would grow by 2.8%, that employment would be up by 400,000, that manufacturing would be up by 4%, that exports would surge, that public borrowing would fall sharply, this would have been dismissed as stupid Leave propaganda.
The same could be said about expectations for the US and for the Eurozone. The fact remains that, in relative terms, the UK is lagging behind.
There will always be some quarters in which our economy grows more slowly than the average. And some quarters when it grows faster.
Article also points out Tories like Boles are also proposing something similar which is interesting. I suspect the Tories could never get this through - too many landowning supporters.
Article also points out Tories like Boles are also proposing something similar which is interesting. I suspect the Tories could never get this through - too many landowning supporters.
The Tories are not daft enough to suggest it but a tax on this land is a different matter
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
It's just as well that the economy is perfuming well.
Yep. Smells great!
If somebody had said, immediately prior to the vote in 2016, that in the next 18 months, the economy overall would grow by 2.8%, that employment would be up by 400,000, that manufacturing would be up by 4%, that exports would surge, that public borrowing would fall sharply, this would have been dismissed as stupid Leave propaganda.
A tribute to George Osborne's magnificent stewardship of the economy he bequeathed Mrs May.
Indeed. George left us in good enough stead to withstand the trauma of the referendum result. But that was ultimately only a psychological blow: all the structures and institutions of Britain's EU membership are still in place. Only once they are torn down can we see the true resilience of George's fortress economy.
Anywho, if keeping Customs Union status (whether it's "a" or "the") is true, then it's good news IMO.
There was probably a democratic necessity to end full Single Market membership, since (rightly or wrongly) people felt that they were voting for less immigration. But I maintain that there was virtually nobody voting to "do trade deals around the world" or whatever.
Anywho, if keeping Customs Union status (whether it's "a" or "the") is true, then it's good news IMO.
There was probably a democratic necessity to end full Single Market membership, since (rightly or wrongly) people felt that they were voting for less immigration. But I maintain that there was virtually nobody voting to "do trade deals around the world" or whatever.
Yes. The 'buccaneering spirit' stuff seems to be dead in the water. I suspect it's now dawned just how difficult, protracted and potentially unrewarding all these trade deals are in the modern age. I think our primary focus will be to cobble something up with the EU, and leave the rest of the world for another day.
Yes, all very odd. It's this leaked Brexit assessment paper that seems to be at the root of all this: it's put the willies up the Leavers in a way we've not hitherto seen. And understandably so. Airy talk about sovereignty is one thing; if you start pursuing policies that will actively impoverish the citizenship then that's another thing entirely. No wonder they're lashing out.
It's just as well that the economy is perfuming well.
Yep. Smells great!
If somebody had said, immediately prior to the vote in 2016, that in the next 18 months, the economy overall would grow by 2.8%, that employment would be up by 400,000, that manufacturing would be up by 4%, that exports would surge, that public borrowing would fall sharply, this would have been dismissed as stupid Leave propaganda.
A tribute to George Osborne's magnificent stewardship of the economy he bequeathed Mrs May.
Shame he showed such lack of self-belief in that same economy.....
Substantial Labour gains at SNP expense would remove the Tory advantage alluded to here.
25 SLab gains from the SNP was your last (& much repeated) prediction wasn't it?
20 gains to take Labour to 25 - 30 seats in Scotland. I stand by that.
I asked you previously if you're a betting man but you didn't reply. Any update on that?
I have never been a betting man - despite my instincts re-Scotland having been correct in 2017 when I predicted 4 or 5 Labour MPs .
Strange then that you come to a site based around betting, though I'm sure your repeated predictions for major success for SLab and odd obsession with bastards are appreciated by some.
Not really. Many on here are not involved in betting per se. As for being obsessed with 'bastards' , I am not actually and strongly oppose any discrimination against people born out of wedlock. I am not,however, impressed by their parents. What does concern me is the hypocrisy of those who repeatedly assure us that such things no longer matter, but who then proceed to respond in vitriolic terms when reminded of the true meaning of the word.
Article also points out Tories like Boles are also proposing something similar which is interesting. I suspect the Tories could never get this through - too many landowning supporters.
If Corbyn & his mob of Marxist scum ever do get into power, they'll destroy the UK for generations to come. In their terms, they only float the nice stuff in public. Behind the scenes they'll have a whole stack of Stalinist rules and laws lined up to go.
Seriously, they really are extremely dangerous and all the quisling Labour MPs who don't support Corbyn because they know all this are utterly disgraceful.
Article also points out Tories like Boles are also proposing something similar which is interesting. I suspect the Tories could never get this through - too many landowning supporters.
If Corbyn & his mob of Marxist scum ever do get into power, they'll destroy the UK for generations to come. In their terms, they only float the nice stuff in public. Behind the scenes they'll have a whole stack of Stalinist rules and laws lined up to go.
Seriously, they really are extremely dangerous and all the quisling Labour MPs who don't support Corbyn because they know all this are utterly disgraceful.
Nah. It will be fine, nothing to fear in a little rebalancing of society. The sun will still come up in the morning.
Comments
The collapse of the LDs also harmed the Tories in 2017 since a lot of their support went to Labour, depriving the Tories of a majority even though they polled their highest since 1987.
We can now dismiss anything either of them has to say as unreliable witnesses.
The SNP/Labour situation in Scotland is not dissimilar
In 1992 Labour lost for a fourth time after being out of power for 13 years. In 2022, if Labour loses for a fourth time, it will have been out of power for 12 years. A difference of only one year. (Remember there are more 5 year parliaments now, most were 4 years 1979-97).
If Labour loses for a fourth time having been out of power for 12 years, it cannot (as it did not in 1992) simply declare business as usual. Corbynism will be dead.
The system has managed to give both major parties a benefit. I don't know if LibDems ever had over representation for the number of votes cast, but the system has shown itself to be surprisingly reactive to voter changes.
It is bollocks to talk about the highest CON vote share in 87. CON vote went up 5.8% - LAB vote went up 9.8% are the numbers that matter.
Get this crazy thinking out of your head.
You talk about democracy. Remember, Labour MPs represent millions of voters who far outnumber the millions of party members. Remember too that those party members are not all hard line Corbynistas. Most of them will in the end tire of losing elections. General elections are also about democracy, and if the voters keep rejecting Labour, Labourt members -who allegedly believe in democracy, should listen to the democratic will of the People.Remember too, since you are so fond of glibly referring to democracy that Momentum members were elected to the NEC recently on a 12% turnout. Some democracy.
Next time round I suspect there will be at least one different leader.
Also the situation in Scotland will likely be different?
Plus things might go back to more normal voting coalitions...
So all in all I think UNS from where we are won’t hold.
Corbyn supporters seem to think they have the party membership in the bag. But I believe that the majority of Labour members even now are not hard line Corbynistas, and that the majority of them will tire of losing elections -without wishing to return to Blairism -and will return to mainstream Labour of neither Corbynista hard left, or Blairite right. A return to the Labour of Wilson Attlee and Smith, and I think someone like Emily Thornberry or another will take it there.
There will also have to be a hard and ruthless battle with Militant....sorry I mean Momentum.
Both May`s Conservatives and Corbyn`s Labour are excellent examples of this. The only way they can win support is to be all things to all men while in opposition, and demonise the other group.
The Coalition Government was much stronger and much more sensible, and we need more governments like that.
What's the prize for the first right answer?
https://twitter.com/ElectCalculus/status/959010517498122240
Brexiters don't like the EU because its institutions get in the way of a national majority. They make radical changes of policy difficult, and government less responsive to the people's temporary will.
That is in fact their intended purpose. To secure peace and wealth in Europe by tempering the people's desires through institutions. They were created after the alternative was tested to destruction.
This can be read in a different way:
People don't like the EU because it reduces actual accountability, paying lip service to the democratic institutions of individual nations while actually rendering them useless via supranational institutions that are accountable, at best, to themselves and a limited elite, who are far more susceptible to takeover by narrow sectional interests than a broader polis.
(And he's right here with this line) That is, in fact, their intendend purpose.
To transfer power away from democratically accountable institutions and replace them with a narrow grouping of individuals who believe they know what's best for all of us. To, in effect, "temper the desires" of the proleteriat, who don't know what's good for them.
And as far as "the alternative was tested to destruction", let us remember that democracy is the least worst system of government.
Past electorates had ring-side seats for the effects of communist governments. Present electorates do not have that experience.
I think the election of a left-wing government is very likely at the next GE, whenever that happens.
It will be really interesting to see how a left-wing government manages its policies in present-day circumstances. People have so much & take so much for granted. ISTM that in itself will constrain a left-wing government in unexpected ways.
(Good evening, everybody.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42904024
All this spin is just like when Remainers said they were going to halt the Brexit legislation.
If you're loud about it, it's because you don't have the numbers. If you trail something beforehand as being a huge intervention, it's because it isn't that significant.
To what end? To discredit the Treasury? Hardly seems necessary... the Brexiteers already don’t trust civil servants...
Which, as almost everyone has been saying all along, was the most probable result of Brexit.
Last time I felt my instincts like this was the night of the GE when I became convinced she would not get a majority
I was right then and maybe right now
More like poop than scoop.
We prefer to buy from ngos/UN/private sector whilst Germany prefers to do work in house. A cynic might say that Germany provides a lot of employment to German aid workers...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-plans-landowners-sell-state-fraction-value
I suspect the Tories could never get this through - too many landowning supporters.
How about we go the whole hog and choose to stay in "a" European union, rather than "the" European Union?
There was probably a democratic necessity to end full Single Market membership, since (rightly or wrongly) people felt that they were voting for less immigration. But I maintain that there was virtually nobody voting to "do trade deals around the world" or whatever.
A touch of Damian McBride about him, smearing anyone who gets in his way.
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUKPol/status/959178203842609152
Seriously, they really are extremely dangerous and all the quisling Labour MPs who don't support Corbyn because they know all this are utterly disgraceful.