They were/are arrogant, they didn't want the Lib Dems dragging them down or holding them back.
I wonder if they believed many in the press about how everyone really wanted a centrist alternative. People who wanted to push this theory were able to ignore the last election on the basis that people didn't have a decent centrist alternative because the Lib Dems reputation discounted them.
If you believe the majority did want centrism and the only reason the Lib Dems didn't make a big breakthrough is because their reputation held them back then CUKs actions make sense. If you read some newspapers and listened to some journalists you would have assumed that all this would have happened quite easily and CUK MPs would be riding a huge wave of popular support just by not being in Corbyn's Labour or the pro Brexit Tories.
It turns out reality is rather more complicated than some imagine.
Edit: I enjoyed Ians comment, we should ask(force) him to write a whole thread on the subject!
I think you are onto something here. And I think to take it one step further, this theory around the attraction of centrism assumes that the political spectrum - regardless along how many dimensions it is measured - is continuous.
I simply do not think that that is the case. I think rather that the 'spectrum' is lumpy - there are certain bundles of beliefs that garner support, but that bits of the spectrum between these bundles get next to nothing. History would suggest that these bundles exist (using the old 1-dimensional spectrum model for the ease of discussion) at centre right, centre left, right, far right, left and far left. Where precisely these bundles lie on the spectrum may shift over time, but in the one-dimensional model, I don't really see more than 6 (the two wings of the big 2 parties, the fringes on either side).
I would also posit that this is why the LibDems only do well on the national level when one or other of the two major parties is struggling, having shifted too far from the centre so as to lose it's centrist wing.
Pretty selfish of him. The security he will need as PM if he continues to live at home may be impossible to give him and will very seriously inconvenience his neighbours.
Not really. Harold Wilson did not live in No 10 during his second stint as PM from March 1974, but continued residing at Lord North Street. I don't think Callaghan moved there either upon taking office in April 1976.
Very different times re security.
Do the May's actually live at no.10? Don't think I have seen any of the "see how they live" hagiographies so beloved of Sunday newspapers supplements, the pictures of Theresa making Philips brekkies, pouring his tea, etc..
Pretty selfish of him. The security he will need as PM if he continues to live at home may be impossible to give him and will very seriously inconvenience his neighbours.
Not really. Harold Wilson did not live in No 10 during his second stint as PM from March 1974, but continued residing at Lord North Street. I don't think Callaghan moved there either upon taking office in April 1976.
Very different times re security.
But are the threats really so much greater than in the 1970s when the IRA was attempting to blow up British politicians? Moreover , the Suffragettes were smashing windows in Downing Street before World War 1!
No I don't think they are. But in the 1970s anyone over about 35 could remember the war, when the threat to everyone's life and security was exponentially greater than that posed by the IRA. Politicians took the view that they should share the risks run by the general public and not retreat behind what was then seen as the heavy-handed and isolating security which surrounded foreign leaders. Before the assassination of Airey Neave in 1979 there was virtually no security at Westminster and only the PM, Foreign & Home Secretaries and the NI secretary had any personal protection.
Todays gun-toting police patrolling fortress Westminster would horrify previous generations.
Berlin airport. 10 years late and many times the original budget.
China has built its high speed network more quickly though but they do have to worry about consultation or public scrutiny.
All this makes one think that the idea that Big Science will sort out global warming by planet scale engineering works is a bit on the optimistic side.
Regardless of who is responsible these are atrocities quite as evil as the Christchurch massacre. To slaughter Christians worshipping in church on the most important day in their religious year is deliberately evil violence.
And it is not that infrequent. Christians have been murdered while worshipping in churches in Pakistan and Egypt and have been targeted in Iraq too.
Will we see the same reaction as to Christchurch? My guess is no - it’s all too far away, the people involved are brown and Christian so not a fashionable victim group and there is no recognisably nice boy who wouldn’t harm a fly when young growing up into evil killer story for the newspapers to ventilate over.
And yet we should not turn away. These murdered people matter. The reasons why this evil happens matter. We should spare a thought for those mourning today.
You can't use murdered Christians abroad as a pretext to attack your political opponents at home.
Jezziah has it absolutely right on CUK, and also put it less belligerently than I normally do. They believed there was a huge vacuum in the centre of British politics. If anything their failure will be evidence that isn't so. That's why centrists are going to start focusing on their gaffes and tactical errors rather than considering that just saying "we're centrists" without any policy platform and expecting voters to rush into their arms was doomed from the start.
Pretty selfish of him. The security he will need as PM if he continues to live at home may be impossible to give him and will very seriously inconvenience his neighbours.
Not really. Harold Wilson did not live in No 10 during his second stint as PM from March 1974, but continued residing at Lord North Street. I don't think Callaghan moved there either upon taking office in April 1976.
Very different times re security.
But are the threats really so much greater than in the 1970s when the IRA was attempting to blow up British politicians? Moreover , the Suffragettes were smashing windows in Downing Street before World War 1!
No I don't think they are. But in the 1970s anyone over about 35 could remember the war, when the threat to everyone's life and security was exponentially greater than that posed by the IRA. Politicians took the view that they should share the risks run by the general public and not retreat behind what was then seen as the heavy-handed and isolating security which surrounded foreign leaders. Before the assassination of Airey Neave in 1979 there was virtually no security at Westminster and only the PM, Foreign & Home Secretaries and the NI secretary had any personal protection.
Todays gun-toting police patrolling fortress Westminster would horrify previous generations.
Indeed, when I joined the FCO in 1980, I entered the building via a back door on Downing Street. There was a simple fence across the Downing Street entrance with one bobby checking IDs. There was no security at any of the FCO's 4 entrances (now only 1) other than an old geyser behind a desk barely glancing at your badge.
Berlin airport. 10 years late and many times the original budget.
China has built its high speed network more quickly though but they do have to worry about consultation or public scrutiny.
China also has a major problem with corruption in supplies of building materials and adherence to build quality and building control rules and regulations. All in all, I think I would prefer to travel by rail in the UK and Europe as we seem to have already made most of the mistakes and should have learnt from them.
Indeed, when I joined the FCO in 1980, I entered the building via a back door on Downing Street. There was a simple fence across the Downing Street entrance with one bobby checking IDs. There was no security at any of the FCO's 4 entrances (now only 1) other than an old geyser behind a desk barely glancing at your badge.
Politicians should not seem to be afraid of ordinary people. Today's in-your-face security and sanitised media events with hand picked audiences merely add to the sense of remoteness from the lives of the electorate and play into the hands of Farage and other anti-politicians.
Pretty selfish of him. The security he will need as PM if he continues to live at home may be impossible to give him and will very seriously inconvenience his neighbours.
Not really. Harold Wilson did not live in No 10 during his second stint as PM from March 1974, but continued residing at Lord North Street. I don't think Callaghan moved there either upon taking office in April 1976.
Very different times re security.
Do the May's actually live at no.10? Don't think I have seen any of the "see how they live" hagiographies so beloved of Sunday newspapers supplements, the pictures of Theresa making Philips brekkies, pouring his tea, etc..
Why does security need to be any different, i.e. more officious? People who are now 50-55 probably don't remember the frequency of IRA bombs 40-45 yrs ago and most of the population are younger than 50
In some years there were 1-2 shootings or bombs a month. But people alive now may be more scared of being blown up than people were in the 1970s as a result of the incessant publicity given to 'terror'. If they are, I think it counts as deliberately scaring people.
Pretty selfish of him. The security he will need as PM if he continues to live at home may be impossible to give him and will very seriously inconvenience his neighbours.
Not really. Harold Wilson did not live in No 10 during his second stint as PM from March 1974, but continued residing at Lord North Street. I don't think Callaghan moved there either upon taking office in April 1976.
Very different times re security.
But are the threats really so much greater than in the 1970s when the IRA was attempting to blow up British politicians? Moreover , the Suffragettes were smashing windows in Downing Street before World War 1!
Yes
In those days the terrorists preferred to live to strike again later.
They were/are arrogant, they didn't want the Lib Dems dragging them down or holding them back.
I wonder if they believed many in the press about how everyone really wanted a centrist alternative. People ome journalists you would have xit Tories.
It turns out reality is rather more complicated than some imagine.
Edit: I enjoyed Ians comment, we should ask(force) him to write a whole thread on the subject!
I think you are onto something here. And I think to take it one step further, this theory around the attraction of centrism assumes that the political spectrum - regardless along how many dimensions it is measured - is continuous.
I simply do not think that that is the case. I think rather that the 'spectrum' is lumpy - there are certain bundles of beliefs that garner support, but that bits of the spectrum between these bundles get next to nothing. History would suggest that these bundles exist (using the old 1-dimensional spectrum model for the ease of discussion) at centre right, centre left, right, far right, left and far left. Where precisely these bundles lie on the spectrum may shift over time, but in the one-dimensional model, I don't really see more than 6 (the two wings of the big 2 parties, the fringes on either side).
I would also posit that this is why the LibDems only do well on the national level when one or other of the two major parties is struggling, having shifted too far from the centre so as to lose it's centrist wing.
Or, just maybe, the concept of voters like punters looking for the nearest ice cream stall on a long beach is flawed to begin with. For, contrary to expectation, the third party has often done well when the two main parties are relatively close together - think the two elections in 1974, 1997, and 2010 - and less well when there is a bigger gap between Tory and Labour, such as 1979 and 2017. The one that confounds the pattern is of course 1983, but in the unique circumstance of one of the major parties having just split with part of it teaming up with the centre. The success, in vote share at least, of the centre party didn't rest solely upon Labour being very extreme.
So this counter argument - thrown out for discussion - is that under our system the centre party actually does worse when the main parties are further apart, because fear of one or the other drives most voters to choose between them (as we just saw in 2017), and better when both the main parties are in the centre and therefore voters are more relaxed about either of them taking power, and so more receptive to giving the third party a try.
And, as a related but different point, I suggest voters are more receptive to a third party when one of the main parties is already obviously the winner and the other is out of the running, as in 1983 and 1997.
Regardless of who is responsible these are atrocities quite as evil as the Christchurch massacre. To slaughter Christians worshipping in church on the most important day in their religious year is deliberately evil violence.
And it is not that infrequent. Christians have been murdered while worshipping in churches in Pakistan and Egypt and have been targeted in Iraq too.
Will we see the same reaction as to Christchurch? My guess is no - it’s all too far away, the people involved are brown and Christian so not a fashionable victim group and there is no recognisably nice boy who wouldn’t harm a fly when young growing up into evil killer story for the newspapers to ventilate over.
And yet we should not turn away. These murdered people matter. The reasons why this evil happens matter. We should spare a thought for those mourning today.
You can't use murdered Christians abroad as a pretext to attack your political opponents at home.
Pretty selfish of him. The security he will need as PM if he continues to live at home may be impossible to give him and will very seriously inconvenience his neighbours.
Not really. Harold Wilson did not live in No 10 during his second stint as PM from March 1974, but continued residing at Lord North Street. I don't think Callaghan moved there either upon taking office in April 1976.
Very different times re security.
But are the threats really so much greater than in the 1970s when the IRA was attempting to blow up British politicians? Moreover , the Suffragettes were smashing windows in Downing Street before World War 1!
Yes
In those days the terrorists preferred to live to strike again later.
Do suicide bombers target politicians here or even abroad? Mostly ISIL targets fun. A reopened Downing Street would be more of a target for climate change protesters than religiously-crazed assassins, and probably the biggest danger to government would be tourists trying to get selfies against the iconic front door to Number 10. Even now at the gate, there is always a crowd of tourists staring for hours at, well, nothing in particular.
Okay, I've downloaded the MEF's report into HS2, and it's light - just three pages. But there are blaring danger signs. E.g.: "The annual running costs are currently estimated as equivalent to the total running costs of the entire Network Rail network"
That's quite a claim. In fact, I'd argue it's bullshit.
No - that isn't right.
The claim was that the Government's annual contribution to HS2 construction costs would be equivalent to the annual running costs of Network rail i.e. £4 bn to £5bn.
HS2 is toxic to Tory voting areas - starting in Hampstead and moving north through Bucks and beyond. The benefits and the stations don't start until Birmingham. And that is the politics. And Crossrail doesn't help with its delays and overspends and stories of bonuses and the use of wrong concrete.
Maybe our politicians don't have the ability or the stomach to deal with long term problems - housing, social care and infrastructure?
I know nothing about the technicalities of HS2. But spending the money on really good Broadband in all the country, particularly in remote areas, and on proper bus / tram services, again in remote rural areas and smaller towns so as to give them the infrastructure they need to help them develop seems to me to be a better use of the money.
The West Coast mainline is at capacity and something has to be done. HS2 is the best solution.
Which other solutions have you considered in coming up with such a bold claim?
Pretty selfish of him. The security he will need as PM if he continues to live at home may be impossible to give him and will very seriously inconvenience his neighbours.
Not really. Harold Wilson did not live in No 10 during his second stint as PM from March 1974, but continued residing at Lord North Street. I don't think Callaghan moved there either upon taking office in April 1976.
Very different times re security.
But are the threats really so much greater than in the 1970s when the IRA was attempting to blow up British politicians? Moreover , the Suffragettes were smashing windows in Downing Street before World War 1!
Yes
In those days the terrorists preferred to live to strike again later.
And they also had a clear political objective which could theoretically be delivered or negotiated or achieved by democratic means - world domination, subjugation of the infidels and a world wide Caliphate is a bit harder to agree to.
Considering we wouldn't accept the Pakistani christian sentenced to death because it would be "bad for community relations"
I don't know what has now become of that lady, but it would be lovely if Theresa made the gesture of overturning that extremely unjust decision - it would really prove her money was where her mouth was.
Considering we wouldn't accept the Pakistani christian sentenced to death because it would be "bad for community relations"
I don't know what has now become of that lady, but it would be lovely if Theresa made the gesture of overturning that extremely unjust decision - it would really prove her money was where her mouth was.
Happy Easter everyone.
Australia has actually offered Asia Bibi asylum - and she would probably be able to live her life more safely there than here. And the weather is better too!
Considering we wouldn't accept the Pakistani christian sentenced to death because it would be "bad for community relations"
I don't know what has now become of that lady, but it would be lovely if Theresa made the gesture of overturning that extremely unjust decision - it would really prove her money was where her mouth was.
Happy Easter everyone.
Australia has actually offered Asia Bibi asylum - and she would probably be able to live her life more safely there than here. And the weather is better too!
Still wouldn't do any harm to reverse the decision. And in fact, if Theresa doesn't do it soon, surely 'the Saj' will seize the chance to burnish his leadership credentials and do it.
Considering we wouldn't accept the Pakistani christian sentenced to death because it would be "bad for community relations"
I don't know what has now become of that lady, but it would be lovely if Theresa made the gesture of overturning that extremely unjust decision - it would really prove her money was where her mouth was.
Happy Easter everyone.
Australia has actually offered Asia Bibi asylum - and she would probably be able to live her life more safely there than here. And the weather is better too!
Still wouldn't do any harm to reverse the decision. And in fact, if Theresa doesn't do it soon, surely 'the Saj' will seize the chance to burnish his leadership credentials and do it.
Contrast the reaction from the celebs and MPs to Brunei simply announcing it was introducing similar laws to Pakistan - statutory death penalty for homosexuality, sex outside marriage and blasphemy. No demands from Labour MPs to expel Pakistan from the Commonwealth for example. A dozen other nations have similar laws - one is even hosting the next football world cup.
Yet not a word of comment or criticism of the states which already have those laws in place - whether they apply them or not. But I suppose its easy to pick on a small nation like Brunei with less than half a million people than larger nations with tens if not hundreds of millions of citizens with a few more expat voters in the UK.
I think the term might be gutless - focus on easier targets but if it might cost them votes or cause a little upset they will keep quiet!
Hmm. Best make an appointment at the JobCentre as soon as the election is called, then, most of them. Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston might be able to do a deal with the local LD's, if the latter are feeling kindly disposed
Which they won't be. Chris Leslie is doing a very good job of ensuring that.
It's notable that opinion of TIG in online Lib Dem activist groups has shifted recently from welcoming or sceptical to actively hostile.
Tigs don't want to be playmates with cables zombies, they want to replace them
Rather bold, not sure they have that in them.
A quick canvass of the 2 other adults on the beach with me in the north east, they had not heard of ChangeUK . Definitive proof they are done.
Jezziah has it absolutely right on CUK, and also put it less belligerently than I normally do. They believed there was a huge vacuum in the centre of British politics. If anything their failure will be evidence that isn't so. That's why centrists are going to start focusing on their gaffes and tactical errors rather than considering that just saying "we're centrists" without any policy platform and expecting voters to rush into their arms was doomed from the start.
Yep, though very few people identify as centrists. The most overused trope in Lib Dem circles is “we’re liberals, not centrists”. Interesting contrast to France where there’s even a party called les Centristes.
I find it rather amusing that Change UK has challenged the other parties to a TV Debate in the period leading up to the EU elections. It is not clear that there would be any reasonable basis for including them in such a debate! I cannot see them being granted 'major party status'.
Well in MP terms they qualify as much as some others but thats not the basis its solely judged against
I find it rather amusing that Change UK has challenged the other parties to a TV Debate in the period leading up to the EU elections. It is not clear that there would be any reasonable basis for including them in such a debate! I cannot see them being granted 'major party status'.
Well in MP terms they qualify as much as some others but thats not the basis its solely judged against
They have no track record of past support to justify inclusion - though neither does the Brexit party which can only point to poll ratings. The case for excluding both is strengthened by their failure to contest the Local Elections next week.
I think you are onto something here. And I think to take it one step further, this theory around the attraction of centrism assumes that the political spectrum - regardless along how many dimensions it is measured - is continuous.
I simply do not think that that is the case. I think rather that the 'spectrum' is lumpy - there are certain bundles of beliefs that garner support, but that bits of the spectrum between these bundles get next to nothing. History would suggest that these bundles exist (using the old 1-dimensional spectrum model for the ease of discussion) at centre right, centre left, right, far right, left and far left. Where precisely these bundles lie on the spectrum may shift over time, but in the one-dimensional model, I don't really see more than 6 (the two wings of the big 2 parties, the fringes on either side).
I would also posit that this is why the LibDems only do well on the national level when one or other of the two major parties is struggling, having shifted too far from the centre so as to lose it's centrist wing.
Or, just maybe, the concept of voters like punters looking for the nearest ice cream stall on a long beach is flawed to begin with. For, contrary to expectation, the third party has often done well when the two main parties are relatively close together - think the two elections in 1974, 1997, and 2010 - and less well when there is a bigger gap between Tory and Labour, such as 1979 and 2017. The one that confounds the pattern is of course 1983, but in the unique circumstance of one of the major parties having just split with part of it teaming up with the centre. The success, in vote share at least, of the centre party didn't rest solely upon Labour being very extreme.
So this counter argument - thrown out for discussion - is that under our system the centre party actually does worse when the main parties are further apart, because fear of one or the other drives most voters to choose between them (as we just saw in 2017), and better when both the main parties are in the centre and therefore voters are more relaxed about either of them taking power, and so more receptive to giving the third party a try.
And, as a related but different point, I suggest voters are more receptive to a third party when one of the main parties is already obviously the winner and the other is out of the running, as in 1983 and 1997.
All good points, and I am not wedded to my suggestion. Clearly, regardless of starting positions, gaming also happens, distorting the results from actual true voter first preferences.
Jezziah has it absolutely right on CUK, and also put it less belligerently than I normally do. They believed there was a huge vacuum in the centre of British politics. If anything their failure will be evidence that isn't so. That's why centrists are going to start focusing on their gaffes and tactical errors rather than considering that just saying "we're centrists" without any policy platform and expecting voters to rush into their arms was doomed from the start.
Yep, though very few people identify as centrists. The most overused trope in Lib Dem circles is “we’re liberals, not centrists”. Interesting contrast to France where there’s even a party called les Centristes.
Not many people identify as anything these days in the UK, and they're quite sympathetic to the idea of compromise and moderation, so long as it doesn't, um, involve anything they feel strongly about (I like pizza with pineapple, but I'll tolerate someone who doesn't). So a new self-declared moderate party always attracts mild interest, until they actually endorse something. But as El_C notes, they do need to stand for something to actually get active support.
I find it rather amusing that Change UK has challenged the other parties to a TV Debate in the period leading up to the EU elections. It is not clear that there would be any reasonable basis for including them in such a debate! I cannot see them being granted 'major party status'.
Well in MP terms they qualify as much as some others but thats not the basis its solely judged against
They have no track record of past support to justify inclusion - though neither does the Brexit party which can only point to poll ratings. The case for excluding both is strengthened by their failure to contest the Local Elections next week.
That's true enough, I think at best they are minor party status.
Yep, though very few people identify as centrists. The most overused trope in Lib Dem circles is “we’re liberals, not centrists”. Interesting contrast to France where there’s even a party called les Centristes.
Centrism just does not sound inspiring. It sounds wet. What do we want? A mixed economy with decent public services, a welfare safety net, progressive taxation, and sound public finances! When do we want it? Now!
No.
Far better is to talk of liberal democracy. This is precious and is threatened by the politics of extremes, both of left and right.
In fact why not get that deep attachment to liberal democracy embedded in the name of any putative new centrist party? It's not already taken as far as I'm aware.
I find it rather amusing that Change UK has challenged the other parties to a TV Debate in the period leading up to the EU elections. It is not clear that there would be any reasonable basis for including them in such a debate! I cannot see them being granted 'major party status'.
Well in MP terms they qualify as much as some others but thats not the basis its solely judged against
They have no track record of past support to justify inclusion - though neither does the Brexit party which can only point to poll ratings. The case for excluding both is strengthened by their failure to contest the Local Elections next week.
What does not contesting the local elections have to do with whether a single issue party should be given coverage in an election largely concerned with their single issue which has nothing to do with local government?
I find it rather amusing that Change UK has challenged the other parties to a TV Debate in the period leading up to the EU elections. It is not clear that there would be any reasonable basis for including them in such a debate! I cannot see them being granted 'major party status'.
Well in MP terms they qualify as much as some others but thats not the basis its solely judged against
They have no track record of past support to justify inclusion - though neither does the Brexit party which can only point to poll ratings. The case for excluding both is strengthened by their failure to contest the Local Elections next week.
What does not contesting the local elections have to do with whether a single issue party should be given coverage in an election largely concerned with their single issue which has nothing to do with local government?
Neither claims to be a single issue party - nor are the EU elections confined to one.
Okay, I've downloaded the MEF's report into HS2, and it's light - just three pages. But there are blaring danger signs. E.g.: "The annual running costs are currently estimated as equivalent to the total running costs of the entire Network Rail network"
That's quite a claim. In fact, I'd argue it's bullshit.
No - that isn't right.
The claim was that the Government's annual contribution to HS2 construction costs would be equivalent to the annual running costs of Network rail i.e. £4 bn to £5bn.
(Snip)
I've just rechecked, and the quote is as I give above, with no notes or qualifications.
If it as you say, then it's very odd to compare construction costs and annual running costs: it's comparing apples and oranges.
The opinion polling suggests around 55% are very keen to stay in the EU so it's odd that a party focussed on this objective fails to gain the same sort of traction as the Brexit party. Either the issue itself lacks deep support compared to others or there's been a massive failure of leadership.
You could say the same about the LDs...
So it seems like a “problem” with Remain voters.
Except that a lot of remain voters' logic is that either Labour or the Conservatives are likely to form the next administration. So the most influential vote to cast is to whichever of the two is the most sympathetic to remaining in/having a positive relationship with the EU. That's what happened in 2017. Labour's optimum position is just a shade more europhile than whatever the Tories are offering.
The opinion polling suggests around 55% are very keen to stay in the EU so it's odd that a party focussed on this objective fails to gain the same sort of traction as the Brexit party. Either the issue itself lacks deep support compared to others or there's been a massive failure of leadership.
You could say the same about the LDs...
So it seems like a “problem” with Remain voters.
Except that a lot of remain voters' logic is that either Labour or the Conservatives are likely to form the next administration. So the most influential vote to cast is to whichever of the two is the most sympathetic to remaining in/having a positive relationship with the EU. That's what happened in 2017. Labour's optimum position is just a shade more europhile than whatever the Tories are offering.
Given the Tories know they need to have Brexit delivered, it thus makes sense for the Conservatives to go as Brexity as possible. They know that Labour would then be just a fraction more Remainy, but still be committed to Brexit.
Yep, though very few people identify as centrists. The most overused trope in Lib Dem circles is “we’re liberals, not centrists”. Interesting contrast to France where there’s even a party called les Centristes.
Centrism just does not sound inspiring. It sounds wet. What do we want? A mixed economy with decent public services, a welfare safety net, progressive taxation, and sound public finances! When do we want it? Now!
No.
Far better is to talk of liberal democracy. This is precious and is threatened by the politics of extremes, both of left and right.
In fact why not get that deep attachment to liberal democracy embedded in the name of any putative new centrist party? It's not already taken as far as I'm aware.
In the UK context, it is the right and left wing most committed to preserving democracy. The Brexit vote saw a huge surge in faith in democracy in the UK, as working class voters finally saw they could influence the political process. It is the centrist CUKs, Lib Dems, Tory wets and Blairites that want to overrule a democratic vote and the resubject the UK to rule by Byzantine EU bureaucracy. That would make democracy far more fragile as the public would lose faith in it.
Yep, though very few people identify as centrists. The most overused trope in Lib Dem circles is “we’re liberals, not centrists”. Interesting contrast to France where there’s even a party called les Centristes.
Centrism just does not sound inspiring. It sounds wet. What do we want? A mixed economy with decent public services, a welfare safety net, progressive taxation, and sound public finances! When do we want it? Now!
No.
Far better is to talk of liberal democracy. This is precious and is threatened by the politics of extremes, both of left and right.
In fact why not get that deep attachment to liberal democracy embedded in the name of any putative new centrist party? It's not already taken as far as I'm aware.
In the UK context, it is the right and left wing most committed to preserving democracy. The Brexit vote saw a huge surge in faith in democracy in the UK, as working class voters finally saw they could influence the political process. It is the centrist CUKs, Lib Dems, Tory wets and Blairites that want to overrule a democratic vote and the resubject the UK to rule by Byzantine EU bureaucracy. That would make democracy far more fragile as the public would lose faith in it.
The Brexit vote saw a huge surge in people voting for something that they could not have, namely all the benefits of EU membership without any of the costs. Whether this will result in a huge surge in faith in democracy remains to be seen but early signs are not hopeful.
Comments
I simply do not think that that is the case. I think rather that the 'spectrum' is lumpy - there are certain bundles of beliefs that garner support, but that bits of the spectrum between these bundles get next to nothing. History would suggest that these bundles exist (using the old 1-dimensional spectrum model for the ease of discussion) at centre right, centre left, right, far right, left and far left. Where precisely these bundles lie on the spectrum may shift over time, but in the one-dimensional model, I don't really see more than 6 (the two wings of the big 2 parties, the fringes on either side).
I would also posit that this is why the LibDems only do well on the national level when one or other of the two major parties is struggling, having shifted too far from the centre so as to lose it's centrist wing.
Todays gun-toting police patrolling fortress Westminster would horrify previous generations.
In the pursuit of scientific advance, I have confirmed that mint chocolate fudge is tasty. But not quite as delicious as coffee fudge.
The experiment continues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process
In some years there were 1-2 shootings or bombs a month. But people alive now may be more scared of being blown up than people were in the 1970s as a result of the incessant publicity given to 'terror'. If they are, I think it counts as deliberately scaring people.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6944513/Theresa-vows-crackdown-Christian-persecution-world.html
Considering we wouldn't accept the Pakistani christian sentenced to death because it would be "bad for community relations"
Your country thanks you for your service.
The Tiggers are campaigning in Cambridge.*
At least, I presume that's why there was a stuffed Tigger carefully placed on top of the speed camera.
*That's the real Cambridge just outside Stroud, not the small and unimportant Cambridge in Fenland.
In those days the terrorists preferred to live to strike again later.
So this counter argument - thrown out for discussion - is that under our system the centre party actually does worse when the main parties are further apart, because fear of one or the other drives most voters to choose between them (as we just saw in 2017), and better when both the main parties are in the centre and therefore voters are more relaxed about either of them taking power, and so more receptive to giving the third party a try.
And, as a related but different point, I suggest voters are more receptive to a third party when one of the main parties is already obviously the winner and the other is out of the running, as in 1983 and 1997.
https://twitter.com/kyivpost/status/1119927027430195200?s=21
The claim was that the Government's annual contribution to HS2 construction costs would be equivalent to the annual running costs of Network rail i.e. £4 bn to £5bn.
HS2 is toxic to Tory voting areas - starting in Hampstead and moving north through Bucks and beyond. The benefits and the stations don't start until Birmingham. And that is the politics. And Crossrail doesn't help with its delays and overspends and stories of bonuses and the use of wrong concrete.
Maybe our politicians don't have the ability or the stomach to deal with long term problems - housing, social care and infrastructure?
Happy Easter everyone.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HgQM_v3mln0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD
Yet not a word of comment or criticism of the states which already have those laws in place - whether they apply them or not. But I suppose its easy to pick on a small nation like Brunei with less than half a million people than larger nations with tens if not hundreds of millions of citizens with a few more expat voters in the UK.
I think the term might be gutless - focus on easier targets but if it might cost them votes or cause a little upset they will keep quiet!
A quick canvass of the 2 other adults on the beach with me in the north east, they had not heard of ChangeUK . Definitive proof they are done.
No.
Far better is to talk of liberal democracy. This is precious and is threatened by the politics of extremes, both of left and right.
In fact why not get that deep attachment to liberal democracy embedded in the name of any putative new centrist party? It's not already taken as far as I'm aware.
If it as you say, then it's very odd to compare construction costs and annual running costs: it's comparing apples and oranges.