To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
Most Conservatives have never favoured a written constitution.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
We don't have no constitution. We have an uncodified constitution of precedents, statutes, conventions and works of authority that go back a long time into our history which are accepted and respected.
I view that as preferable and more robust than a more idealistic constitution that's set from the top-down.
I'd view any Government that rode roughshod through our uncodified constitution with little or no respect very unfavourably.
Regarding Rory Stewart: why is he still stuck on single figures in terms of public backers? And why have most of the 19 MPs who voted for him on Thursday refused to go public about it? Very odd.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
They wouldn't need to consider closing parliament had the Speaker not dispensed with convention himself in the cause of thwarting Brexit. Let's not pretend this is all one sided.
The true conservative answer to Brexit would have been 10 years of transition to an EFTA like state.
This is the key point. The Tories rightly championed free trade and business. To bin off free trade and throw business into God knows what is beyond unConservative.
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
There's this weird belief among non-Conservatives that the Conservatives' job is to be the mouthpiece for big business and sod the rest.
Spot on. Many of the self-described Conservatives on here seem to be confused Liberal Democrats who just like paying less tax.
So what should/do they stand for then?
Tradition, independence, and democratic accountability.
If restoring Independence overrides the importance of preserving the status quo, why would they support the union?
I would take the view that it was a massive mistake for the UK to join the European Union, for the very reason that you think it was a great idea - that we are part of a project that requires us to forge a new country called Europe.
I just don't see how any Conservative could think that that was consistent with their principles.
But the UK union is? Why?
You view, in hindsight, pride in the UK as the central rationale for Brexit and see its dissolution as just punishment for voting for it in the first place, and protection against it ever happening again.
Quite aside from being an utterly barking and fanatical belief, it's also delusional.
An independent England would be even more likely to plough its own furrow.
Brexit has shrivelled the Leaver homeland from the UK to Great Britain to England to provincial England. The boundaries continue to shrink.
No, I'm a Unionist, and will remain one.
I'm just contesting the foaming assertion at the heart of William's argument.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
C4: Boris Johnson will be represented by an empty podium in a television debate on Sunday night as his five remaining rivals to be Britain’s next prime minister fight it out for a place alongside him in the ballot of Conservative members.
According to the Guardian the Channel 4 debate is with a "live studio audience of potential Tory voters", potential for some foul play there.
Channel 4? They'd might as well ask RT to host it!
You're overlooking the fact that C4 are subject to the political balance requirements of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code
Boris should just stick with the Beeb and Sky
He should stay off the telly as much as possible so as to minimize the risk that the punters will notice that's snake oil he's selling.
Looked at literally they are all selling snake oil. Brexit requires alignments not in the gift of any Prime Minister. They aren't selling solutions, they are selling leadership and hope. This isn't ordinary time. It's 1979, 1940, 1832, 1688 time.
Question about Rory: why is he still stuck on single figures in terms of public backers? And why have most of the 19 MPs who voted for him on Thursday refused to go public about it? Very odd.
Because they've publicly said they're supporting someone else
The true conservative answer to Brexit would have been 10 years of transition to an EFTA like state.
This is the key point. The Tories rightly championed free trade and business. To bin off free trade and throw business into God knows what is beyond unConservative.
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
There's this weird belief among non-Conservatives that the Conservatives' job is to be the mouthpiece for big business and sod the rest.
Spot on. Many of the self-described Conservatives on here seem to be confused Liberal Democrats who just like paying less tax.
So what should/do they stand for then?
Tradition, independence, and democratic accountability.
If restoring Independence overrides the importance of preserving the status quo, why would they support the union?
I would take the view that it was a massive mistake for the UK to join the European Union, for the very reason that you think it was a great idea - that we are part of a project that requires us to forge a new country called Europe.
I just don't see how any Conservative could think that that was consistent with their principles.
But the UK union is? Why?
People have affection and loyalty towards it.
Pull the other one. If that was true then there would have been no need for Project Fear.
Better Together kept the Union going in 2014 through good old fashioned threats. That card has been played now.
You are the living embodiment of the No True Scotsman fallacy. You believe that No True Scotsman is a Unionist.
I can't recall ever having any fruitful discussion with a Scottish Nationalist about the UK or Unionists: they always end in ad hominem, sarcasm or insults.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
There's this weird belief among non-Conservatives that the Conservatives' job is to be the mouthpiece for big business and sod the rest.
Spot on. Many of the self-described Conservatives on here seem to be confused Liberal Democrats who just like paying less tax.
So what should/do they stand for then?
Tradition, independence, and democratic accountability.
If restoring Independence overrides the importance of preserving the status quo, why would they support the union?
I would take the view that it was a massive mistake for the UK to join the European Union, for the very reason that you think it was a great idea - that we are part of a project that requires us to forge a new country called Europe.
I just don't see how any Conservative could think that that was consistent with their principles.
But the UK union is? Why?
You view, in hindsight, pride in the UK as the central rationale for Brexit and see its dissolution as just punishment for voting for it in the first place, and protection against it ever happening again.
Quite aside from being an utterly barking and fanatical belief, it's also delusional.
An independent England would be even more likely to plough its own furrow.
Brexit has shrivelled the Leaver homeland from the UK to Great Britain to England to provincial England. The boundaries continue to shrink.
No, I'm a Unionist, and will remain one.
I'm just contesting the foaming assertion at the heart of William's argument.
Do you not accept that Leavers are ready to jettison the union with both Northern Ireland and Scotland in pursuit of Brexit? There’s plenty of polling evidence to back that up,
The true conservative answer to Brexit would have been 10 years of transition to an EFTA like state.
This is the key point. The Tories rightly championed free trade and business. To bin off free trade and throw business into God knows what is beyond unConservative.
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
There's this weird belief among non-Conservatives that the Conservatives' job is to be the mouthpiece for big business and sod the rest.
Spot on. Many of the self-described Conservatives on here seem to be confused Liberal Democrats who just like paying less tax.
So what should/do they stand for then?
Tradition, independence, and democratic accountability.
If restoring Independence overrides the importance of preserving the status quo, why would they support the union?
.
But the UK union is? Why?
People have affection and loyalty towards it.
As you're discovering, people have affection and loyalty towards the European Union too. Is there a tipping point beyond which you would accept that membership of the EU should be regarded as a conservative principle?
A minority do, yes.
Suppose the EU was like the Roman Empire in 300 AD and I lived in Britain. I expect I'd be a Roman patriot, and see no reason to change things. I'd see it as working well.
But now, I'm being asked to give up an independence which I cherish, for reasons which seem trivial to me - a couple of extra points on GDP.
Of course, many of those who support the EU using that very same argument are happy to trade a couple of extra points on GDP for action on climate change.
I didn't just grow up in a working class area, I still live there. Currently living and working in Spain I am one month off being unable to afford my rent if I were to lose my job. The same applies to most of my friends back home also. When my father lost his job a few years back, we relied on family members to keep paying the mortgage. I had a Grandmother who grew up on Scotland Road who used to jump on the back of dog biscuit trucks and steal them in order to be able to eat.
So don't tell me what my class is.
You are Ronnie Corbett and I claim your working class origins :
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
There's this weird belief among non-Conservatives that the Conservatives' job is to be the mouthpiece for big business and sod the rest.
Spot on. Many of the self-described Conservatives on here seem to be confused Liberal Democrats who just like paying less tax.
So what should/do they stand for then?
Tradition, independence, and democratic accountability.
If restoring Independence overrides the importance of preserving the status quo, why would they support the union?
I would take the view that it was a massive mistake for the UK to join the European Union, for the very reason that you think it was a great idea - that we are part of a project that requires us to forge a new country called Europe.
I just don't see how any Conservative could think that that was consistent with their principles.
But the UK union is? Why?
You view, in hindsight, pride in the UK as the central rationale for Brexit and see its dissolution as just punishment for voting for it in the first place, and protection against it ever happening again.
Quite aside from being an utterly barking and fanatical belief, it's also delusional.
An independent England would be even more likely to plough its own furrow.
Brexit has shrivelled the Leaver homeland from the UK to Great Britain to England to provincial England. The boundaries continue to shrink.
No, I'm a Unionist, and will remain one.
I'm just contesting the foaming assertion at the heart of William's argument.
Do you not accept that Leavers are ready to jettison the union with both Northern Ireland and Scotland in pursuit of Brexit? There’s plenty of polling evidence to back that up,
Can somebody just remind me, what is conservative about Brexit?
There is nothing conservative about the act of Brexit; therein lies the problem.
The motivation for wanting Brexit - the hankering for an imagined past and for past glories - is of course very conservative.
That hankering for an imagined (or even real but long-gone) past is not conservatism; you cannot conserve what is long-since gone. If anything it is historical re-enactmentism.
Maybe the Conservative Party should rename itself the History Party. The name may soon become very appropriate.
There are over twenty countries that have Pensioners’ Parties. Unfortunately the UK already has one; perhaps the Tories could arrange a merger, or buy them out?
Edit/ even better, according to WP they deregistered some years back. So the vacancy is there for the Tories...
Regarding Rory Stewart: why is he still stuck on single figures in terms of public backers? And why have most of the 19 MPs who voted for him on Thursday refused to go public about it? Very odd.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
The true conservative answer to Brexit would have been 10 years of transition to an EFTA like state.
This is the key point. The Tories rightly championed free trade and business. To bin off free trade and throw business into God knows what is beyond unConservative.
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
There's this weird belief among non-Conservatives that the Conservatives' job is to be the mouthpiece for big business and sod the rest.
Spot on. Many of the self-described Conservatives on here seem to be confused Liberal Democrats who just like paying less tax.
So what should/do they stand for then?
Tradition, independence, and democratic accountability.
If restoring Independence overrides the importance of preserving the status quo, why would they support the union?
I would take the view that it was a massive mistake for the UK to join the European Union, for the very reason that you think it was iples.
But the UK union is? Why?
People have affection and loyalty towards it.
Pull the other one. If that was true then there would have been no need for Project Fear.
Better Together kept the Union going in 2014 through good old fashioned threats. That card has been played now.
In the over 50s in Scotland I still think there is real affection for the Union, in the under 50s that is less the case and indeed the latter already narrowly voted Yes in 2014 and are dissatisfied with the status quo.
In the short term though that means No could still narrowly win any indyref2 even with No Deal because the pensioner vote will go strongly against independence (albeit it would be very close). Longer term though hard Brexit or no hard Brexit only devomax has a chance of saving the union
The true conservative answer to Brexit would have been 10 years of transition to an EFTA like state.
This is the key point. The Tories rightly championed free trade and business. To bin off free trade and throw business into God knows what is beyond unConservative.
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
There's this weird belief among non-Conservatives that the Conservatives' job is to be the mouthpiece for big business and sod the rest.
Spot on. Many of the self-described Conservatives on here seem to be confused Liberal Democrats who just like paying less tax.
So what should/do they stand for then?
Tradition, independence, and democratic accountability.
If restoring Independence overrides the importance of preserving the status quo, why would they support the union?
.
But the UK union is? Why?
People have affection and loyalty towards it.
As you're discovering, people have affection and loyalty towards the European Union too. Is there a tipping point beyond which you would accept that membership of the EU should be regarded as a conservative principle?
A minority do, yes.
Suppose the EU was like the Roman Empire in 300 AD and I lived in Britain. I expect I'd be a Roman patriot, and see no reason to change things. I'd see it as working well.
But now, I'm being asked to give up an independence which I cherish, for reasons which seem trivial to me - a couple of extra points on GDP.
Of course, many of those who support the EU using that very same argument are happy to trade a couple of extra points on GDP for action on climate change.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
They wouldn't need to consider closing parliament had the Speaker not dispensed with convention himself in the cause of thwarting Brexit. Let's not pretend this is all one sided.
This is not entirely fair. Suppose the Scots had voted for independence in the referendum but parliament refused to enact it. Would they not have a proper objection to the people's vote version of democracy being trumped by the parliamentary version? I'm trying to imagine Nicola Sturgeon's indignation. Once you are into the expectations of referendums as a means of getting things done there is bound to be a degree of debate over which voice has priority, and who should be allowed to block whom. Perhaps some more visits to the Supreme Court can be expected.
The true conservative answer to Brexit would have been 10 years of transition to an EFTA like state.
This is the key point. The Tories rightly championed free trade and business. To bin off free trade and throw business into God knows what is beyond unConservative.
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
History suggests that when people have jobs and food and security, then other things become more important. For some, that is expressed through concerns about climate change, or rights for transexuals. For others, it is expressed through concern about a changing social environment caused by immigration, or about how the country is governed.
But when people do not have jobs and food and security, then all they care about is those things.
Maslow.
Funny, that was my first thought too, but I didn't post it for fear of being thought a smartarse.... ;-)
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
I have -£439.13 in mine.
Because, Leadsom.
Has anyone yet explained the Leadsom betting ?
And do we know which PBers made money from it ?
No confirmed explanation but it seems to have been an attempt at market manipulation. I took full advantage.
I bet you took an annoyingly fuller level of advantage than I was able to afford to.
Not that I'm jealous or anything..
The trouble is it is standard-setting. I’m now as deep against Rory Stewart because it doesn’t tie up any more money. I have probably committed myself further on him than I would have done from scratch.
Being in the EU decisively increases the power of the citizen versus the state by guaranteeing that your economic freedoms cannot be curtailed at the national level.
I take the view that if a voting majority wishes to pursue left wing policies, they are entitled to do so, so long as they adhere to democratic norms.
It would be a disgrace if a government like Attlee's was barred from pursuing policies that had got them elected.
And, the same applies to right wing governments, too.
Are you against constitutions and the ECHR in principle as well?
Do you think that an elected government should be completely unrestrained?
If a government was democratically elected on a policy of slaughtering every person called Sean or Siobhan, would you have any issues with that?
I would indeed be against the ECHR in principle.
Are you against having a constitution in principle?
And your answers to my other two questions are?
I see no reason for a written constitution.
As to the rest, I think that a vigorous democracy is the best bastion against tyranny. Plenty of tyrannies have had written constitutions that theoretically guarantee all kinds of rights, while violating them in practice.
Who would write it, and why? How would it be approved and endorsed?
How would we know it wouldn't stack the deck one way or another?
I suspect any constitution written now, today, as opposed to the eighteenth, nineteenth or early twentieth century would be biased towards favouring internationalism, banning hate speech, and promoting diversity and identity equality, whilst containing rather less on privacy, personal freedoms and protection against arbitrary powers of the state.
So, I prefer politics.
I suggest you read the ECHR, largely written by the British. Or look at how Spain wrote its constitution after Franco died. Or how Ireland has approached it.
You say you prefer politics. But politics is intimately involved in constitutions, as a look at the vigorous debates which the Founding Fathers had before they drew up the US Constitution, will tell you. They are not alternatives.
And being without such protections means that parties or politicians who do not fundamentally believe in democracy or, for instance, the right to private property or free speech can play merry hell and abolish democracy. See, for instance, what happened when Islamists won elections in Algeria.
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
I have -£439.13 in mine.
Because, Leadsom.
Has anyone yet explained the Leadsom betting ?
And do we know which PBers made money from it ?
No confirmed explanation but it seems to have been an attempt at market manipulation. I took full advantage.
I bet you took an annoyingly fuller level of advantage than I was able to afford to.
Not that I'm jealous or anything..
The trouble is it is standard-setting. I’m now as deep against Rory Stewart because it doesn’t tie up any more money. I have probably committed myself further on him than I would have done from scratch.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
They wouldn't need to consider closing parliament had the Speaker not dispensed with convention himself in the cause of thwarting Brexit. Let's not pretend this is all one sided.
You think there’s a comparison between allowing MPs to vote on something and closing parliament down?
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
There is a name for people like Raab who wish to cripple democracy. We should not be afraid to label him, and people like him, for what they are.
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
I have -£439.13 in mine.
Because, Leadsom.
Has anyone yet explained the Leadsom betting ?
And do we know which PBers made money from it ?
No confirmed explanation but it seems to have been an attempt at market manipulation. I took full advantage.
I bet you took an annoyingly fuller level of advantage than I was able to afford to.
Not that I'm jealous or anything..
The trouble is it is standard-setting. I’m now as deep against Rory Stewart because it doesn’t tie up any more money. I have probably committed myself further on him than I would have done from scratch.
A quick glance at Betfair just now suggested to me that Stewart is now being punted by the same idiot who drove Leadsome's price down.
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
So you are saying your family is poor and deprived?
My point is that unless you are vulnerable to a recession, with no safety net, you have no place talking about how money is not important.
My family are in a good place, thankfully. But we're not swimming in cash.
My area voted 53% Leave. The working class deserve their voice to be heard, and not to be told by their multiple-home owning superiors in London that it'll knock GDP figures. GDP figures matter very little when you're just getting by.
I’d be less anti Brexit if I thought it might help those struggling to get by. As it is Brexit is a right wing project designed to turn the UK into a low tax , low regulation capitalism on steroids economy .
Astonishingly a bunch of rich lying spivs managed to dupe those with not much to vote for even less.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
There is an intermediate point.
The legitimising of attempts to dismantle Britain’s civic structures is among the worse consequences of Brexit. Britain’s democracy now has serious internal enemies for the first time in generations.
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
I have -£439.13 in mine.
Because, Leadsom.
Has anyone yet explained the Leadsom betting ?
And do we know which PBers made money from it ?
No confirmed explanation but it seems to have been an attempt at market manipulation. I took full advantage.
I bet you took an annoyingly fuller level of advantage than I was able to afford to.
Not that I'm jealous or anything..
The trouble is it is standard-setting. I’m now as deep against Rory Stewart because it doesn’t tie up any more money. I have probably committed myself further on him than I would have done from scratch.
A quick glance at Betfair just now suggested to me that Stewart is now being punted by the same idiot who drove Leadsome's price down.
Maybe he is the man with the killer video of Boris, and hasn’t worked out it would be better to place lay bets against Johnson?
I don't see why everyone is saying that nothing has changed. We've just had the EU elections and there's a completely new EU parliament.
Since the EU is democratic institution then this would naturally lead to a completely new direction for the Brexit negotiations and the EU in general.
So it makes perfect sense to try and reopen negotiations.
Re-opening negotiations means an extension is needed. Even signing off May's deal requires quite a bit of legislative acivity in Westminster and Brussels.
So anyone promising re-opened negotiations really means an extension.
Given that a GE before September is a virtual impossibility, and that producing the required legislation is probably a six week task, then you are absolutely right, reopening negotiations means an extension.
So, what's Boris to do: he's promised both - reopened negotiations and to leave by October 31st?
Presumably he's betting on the EU telling him to "fuck off", and enabling the UK to leave by the end of October through being kicked out. In this scenario, he blames an problems on the EU. (Although history suggests the party in power will get the blame, irrespective of where ultimate responsibility lies.)
The risk with this is that the EU hands him an extension to 2022.
What does he do then?
From the EUs point of view easily their most sensible move would be to grant an extension without limit. They should have done so first time.
On the Boris point - it is very unlikely that anyone can keep their promises on Brexit. No-one has yet. Not least this is because it requires alignment of parliament, government, EU and the people' vote in 2016. Boris has to keep it simple as - Rory is currently finding out - complicated several stage arguments are great but don't win elections with the public, MPs or Tory members.
The EU won't chuck us out on 31st October. No-one wants their hands in the gore at that moment. Personally I think that includes Boris. But negotiation requires non disclosure of the full hand. Something we have not quite got to grips with yet.
The EU hasn't yet realised the advantages of a 25 year extension. We can then forget about this until ~2043.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
There is a name for people like Raab who wish to cripple democracy. We should not be afraid to label him, and people like him, for what they are.
Being in the EU decisively increases the power of the citizen versus the state by guaranteeing that your economic freedoms cannot be curtailed at the national level.
I take the view that if a voting majority wishes to pursue left wing policies, they are entitled to do so, so long as they adhere to democratic norms.
It would be a disgrace if a government like Attlee's was barred from pursuing policies that had got them elected.
And, the same applies to right wing governments, too.
Are you against constitutions and the ECHR in principle as well?
Do you think that an elected government should be completely unrestrained?
If a government was democratically elected on a policy of slaughtering every person called Sean or Siobhan, would you have any issues with that?
I would indeed be against the ECHR in principle.
Are you against having a constitution in principle?
And your answers to my other two questions are?
I see no reason for a written constitution.
As to the rest, I think that a vigorous democracy is the best bastion against tyranny. Plenty of tyrannies have had written constitutions that theoretically guarantee all kinds of rights, while violating them in practice.
Who would write it, and why? How would it be approved and endorsed?
How would we know it wouldn't stack the deck one way or another?
So, I prefer politics.
I suggest you read the ECHR, largely written by the British. Or look at how Spain wrote its constitution after Franco died. Or how Ireland has approached it.
You say you prefer politics. But politics is intimately involved in constitutions, as a look at the vigorous debates which the Founding Fathers had before they drew up the US Constitution, will tell you. They are not alternatives.
And being without such protections means that parties or politicians who do not fundamentally believe in democracy or, for instance, the right to private property or free speech can play merry hell and abolish democracy. See, for instance, what happened when Islamists won elections in Algeria.
Please don't be condescending: I've read the ECHR, and the discussions the Founding Fathers had. Ignorance isn't the issue; I just disagree with you.
I prefer our constitution as it is, and for it to be respected as such.
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
I have -£439.13 in mine.
Because, Leadsom.
Has anyone yet explained the Leadsom betting ?
And do we know which PBers made money from it ?
No confirmed explanation but it seems to have been an attempt at market manipulation. I took full advantage.
I bet you took an annoyingly fuller level of advantage than I was able to afford to.
Not that I'm jealous or anything..
The trouble is it is standard-setting. I’m now as deep against Rory Stewart because it doesn’t tie up any more money. I have probably committed myself further on him than I would have done from scratch.
The true conservative answer to Brexit would have been 10 years of transition to an EFTA like state.
This is the key point. The Tories rightly championed free trade and business. To bin off free trade and throw business into God knows what is beyond unConservative.
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
History suggests that when people have jobs and food and security, then other things become more important. For some, that is expressed through concerns about climate change, or rights for transexuals. For others, it is expressed through concern about a changing social environment caused by immigration, or about how the country is governed.
But when people do not have jobs and food and security, then all they care about is those things.
Maslow.
Funny, that was my first thought too, but I didn't post it for fear of being thought a smartarse.... ;-)
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
So you are saying your family is poor and deprived?
My point is that unless you are vulnerable to a recession, with no safety net, you have no place talking about how money is not important.
My family are in a good place, thankfully. But we're not swimming in cash.
My area voted 53% Leave. The working class deserve their voice to be heard, and not to be told by their multiple-home owning superiors in London that it'll knock GDP figures. GDP figures matter very little when you're just getting by.
I’d be less anti Brexit if I thought it might help those struggling to get by. As it is Brexit is a right wing project designed to turn the UK into a low tax , low regulation capitalism on steroids economy .
Astonishingly a bunch of rich lying spivs managed to dupe those with not much to vote for even less.
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
So you are saying your family is poor and deprived?
My point is that unless you are vulnerable to a recession, with no safety net, you have no place talking about how money is not important.
My family are in a good place, thankfully. But we're not swimming in cash.
My area voted 53% Leave. The working class deserve their voice to be heard, and not to be told by their multiple-home owning superiors in London that it'll knock GDP figures. GDP figures matter very little when you're just getting by.
Do you think these people are protesting about GDP figures?
Who knows why they love the EU - is it the mass youth unemployment in much of Southern Europe it has created to save the Euro, the indebtedness imposed on nations to bailout mostly German bankers and bondholders, the mass migration which has deprived nations in Eastern Europe of their youth so they can serve coffee to those marchers or the impact on increased pressure on local services and housing made worse by austerity in deprived communities in the UK or a wish to retire to Tuscany?
What I do know is the sneering contempt many really have for the working class, poorer and leave voting areas up north. They really think they are superior to them.
It’s no longer just about leaving the EU of course - it’s deeper than that on many levels. It’s essentially a culture and values war!
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
Do you know who prorogued parliament and ruled by decree? Wee guy with a moustache; liked dogs and children; and vegetarianism; and concentration camps.
It begins by suspending the legislature, and ends in horror. Don’t think it couldn’t happen again. Look how it’s going in Spain, and Hungary, and the Philippines.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
They wouldn't need to consider closing parliament had the Speaker not dispensed with convention himself in the cause of thwarting Brexit. Let's not pretend this is all one sided.
You think there’s a comparison between allowing MPs to vote on something and closing parliament down?
I think when offices that were previously neutral politically become politicised, there is a problem. The trouble with most posters here is that with a few exceptions, they will quite happily tolerate the undermining of democratic norms when it suits their own pet causes. It makes their squawking about democracy when threatened with something they don't like seem rather hollow.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
They wouldn't need to consider closing parliament had the Speaker not dispensed with convention himself in the cause of thwarting Brexit. Let's not pretend this is all one sided.
You think there’s a comparison between allowing MPs to vote on something and closing parliament down?
Especially when the Speaker’s decision was itself based on precedent, which these so-called Conservatives claim to revere.
It is extraordinary how scepticism about the EU, something which quite a few Remainers share, has in the hands of the ardent Brexiteers, morphed into something so obsessive and monomaniacal that they are prepared to trample all over everything they previously claimed to hold dear.
@brendan16 I live further north than 95%+ of the population of England. Stop banging on about the North as you have no idea. We are not all one, Brexit supporting mass.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
Do you know who prorogued parliament and ruled by decree? Wee guy with a moustache; liked dogs and children; and vegetarianism; and concentration camps.
It begins by suspending the legislature, and ends in horror. Don’t think it couldn’t happen again. Look how it’s going in Spain, and Hungary, and the Philippines.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
There is an intermediate point.
The legitimising of attempts to dismantle Britain’s civic structures is among the worse consequences of Brexit. Britain’s democracy now has serious internal enemies for the first time in generations.
Interesting piece on Ch4 News about the two girls who were beaten up on the train in a homophobic attack. I didn't realise till the interview that Boris is a homophobe. Odd then that the media are expending so much energy on his experimentation with coke. Surely now we're on the way to our second Bullingdon Boy Prime Ministers it's not as though we're getting a pig in a poke.
What I found most interesting was the lack of talk of the alleged attackers - 15-18 year olds, one of whom was speaking Spanish. The Guardiniastas and Remainers must have been drooling over their expected Gammon feast. How disappointing.
There was some scant detail on the attackers but interesting that two such high profile girls (now) should say that Boris is a homophobe who should never be PM. You know and I know that Boris is an old fashioned public school reactionary where using 'bumboys' and 'Piccanninis' is par for the course but I wonder whether his new younger constituency who have never heard of Eton and loathe that sort of language are ready for him?
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
So you are saying your family is poor and deprived?
My point is that unless you are vulnerable to a recession, with no safety net, you have no place talking about how money is not important.
My family are in a good place, thankfully. But we're not swimming in cash.
My area voted 53% Leave. The working class deserve their voice to be heard, and not to be told by their multiple-home owning superiors in London that it'll knock GDP figures. GDP figures matter very little when you're just getting by.
Do you think these people are protesting about GDP figures?
Who knows why they love the EU - is it the mass youth unemployment in much of Southern Europe it has created to save the Euro, the indebtedness imposed on nations to bailout mostly German bankers and bondholders, the mass migration which has deprived nations in Eastern Europe of their youth so they can serve coffee to those marchers or the impact on increased pressure on local services and housing made worse by austerity in deprived communities in the UK or a wish to retire to Tuscany?
What I do know is the sneering contempt many really have for the working class, poorer and leave voting areas up north. They really think they are superior to them.
It’s no longer just about leaving the EU of course - it’s deeper than that on many levels. It’s essentially a culture and values war!
I was on that march. There was no contempt for the working class in the North or anywhere else. Plenty of contempt for the rich old Brexiteers like Boris, Farage and JRM.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
Do you know who prorogued parliament and ruled by decree? Wee guy with a moustache; liked dogs and children; and vegetarianism; and concentration camps.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
I have -£439.13 in mine.
Because, Leadsom.
Has anyone yet explained the Leadsom betting ?
And do we know which PBers made money from it ?
No confirmed explanation but it seems to have been an attempt at market manipulation. I took full advantage.
I bet you took an annoyingly fuller level of advantage than I was able to afford to.
Not that I'm jealous or anything..
The trouble is it is standard-setting. I’m now as deep against Rory Stewart because it doesn’t tie up any more money. I have probably committed myself further on him than I would have done from scratch.
A quick glance at Betfair just now suggested to me that Stewart is now being punted by the same idiot who drove Leadsome's price down.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
Do you know who prorogued parliament and ruled by decree? Wee guy with a moustache; liked dogs and children; and vegetarianism; and concentration camps.
It begins by suspending the legislature, and ends in horror. Don’t think it couldn’t happen again. Look how it’s going in Spain, and Hungary, and the Philippines.
Barking mad.
That’s what they said about the 94 brave Social Democrat deputies who voted against the Enabling Act of 1933.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
Do you know who prorogued parliament and ruled by decree? Wee guy with a moustache; liked dogs and children; and vegetarianism; and concentration camps.
Regarding class- if you have to get out of bed in a morning to pay your bills, you're working class. If other people have to get out of bed in a morning to pay your bills, you're not working class. "Middle Class" is a device created by the latter to divide the former.
Regarding Brexit the Tories and trade, if you want to leave the politics of the EU I get that. But why leave the Single Market (EFTA) which is explicitly not the EU or the political super state? And why bang on about rule takers knowing that we will need to accept the rules of every state we sign FTAs with and not have any say in those rules?
Regarding the living on the edge people who voted leave as they only just get by. I get their anger and their vote. But in reality the thing they voted for makes it worse. I respect the MPs in leave areas who have examined and marshalled the facts and are standing up for the needs of their constituents even as those same people call them traitor
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
Do you know who prorogued parliament and ruled by decree? Wee guy with a moustache; liked dogs and children; and vegetarianism; and concentration camps.
It begins by suspending the legislature, and ends in horror. Don’t think it couldn’t happen again. Look how it’s going in Spain, and Hungary, and the Philippines.
Barking mad.
That’s what they said about the 94 brave Social Democrat deputies who voted against the Enabling Act of 1933.
I appreciate that comfortably off people would like to be living in a kind of 1930's theme park. But, be serious.
@brendan16 I live further north than 95%+ of the population of England. Stop banging on about the North as you have no idea. We are not all one, Brexit supporting mass.
Did I say everyone in the north - no - but working class leave voters who shock horror don’t have degrees are very much the object of the sneering.
No more than it is correct to suggest everyone in London is a people’s vote backing uber remainer.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
Do you know who prorogued parliament and ruled by decree? Wee guy with a moustache; liked dogs and children; and vegetarianism; and concentration camps.
It begins by suspending the legislature, and ends in horror. Don’t think it couldn’t happen again. Look how it’s going in Spain, and Hungary, and the Philippines.
Barking mad.
That’s what they said about the 94 brave Social Democrat deputies who voted against the Enabling Act of 1933.
Is it true that the SNP's Arthur Donaldson wanted to make peace with the Nazis?
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
I'm too sheltered to know what 'flesh tunnels' are, but not so sheltered that I'm sure you're right that I'd hate them if I knew.
However, I'm disappointed that you missed out "people who say 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested'."
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
I have -£439.13 in mine.
Because, Leadsom.
Has anyone yet explained the Leadsom betting ?
And do we know which PBers made money from it ?
No confirmed explanation but it seems to have been an attempt at market manipulation. I took full advantage.
I bet you took an annoyingly fuller level of advantage than I was able to afford to.
Not that I'm jealous or anything..
The trouble is it is standard-setting. I’m now as deep against Rory Stewart because it doesn’t tie up any more money. I have probably committed myself further on him than I would have done from scratch.
A quick glance at Betfair just now suggested to me that Stewart is now being punted by the same idiot who drove Leadsome's price down.
Maybe he is the man with the killer video of Boris, and hasn’t worked out it would be better to place lay bets against Johnson?
Even if a video goes viral showing Boris in bed with, say, a dead woman or live child, his supporters will simply shrug and say 'That's just Boris. As long as he delivers Brexit....'
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
I'm too sheltered to know what 'flesh tunnels' are, but not so sheltered that I'm sure you're right that I'd hate them if I knew.
However, I'm disappointed that you missed out "people who say 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested'."
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
I have -£439.13 in mine.
Because, Leadsom.
Has anyone yet explained the Leadsom betting ?
And do we know which PBers made money from it ?
No confirmed explanation but it seems to have been an attempt at market manipulation. I took full advantage.
I bet you took an annoyingly fuller level of advantage than I was able to afford to.
Not that I'm jealous or anything..
The trouble is it is standard-setting. I’m now as deep against Rory Stewart because it doesn’t tie up any more money. I have probably committed myself further on him than I would have done from scratch.
A quick glance at Betfair just now suggested to me that Stewart is now being punted by the same idiot who drove Leadsome's price down.
Maybe he is the man with the killer video of Boris, and hasn’t worked out it would be better to place lay bets against Johnson?
Even if a video goes viral showing Boris in bed with, say, a dead woman or live child, his supporters will simply shrug and say 'That's just Boris. As long as he delivers Brexit....'
Please don't be condescending: I've read the ECHR, and the discussions the Founding Fathers had. Ignorance isn't the issue; I just disagree with you.
I prefer our constitution as it is, and for it to be respected as such.
Comparing us to Algeria is hyperbole.
The ECHR is part of our constitution.
I give the example of Algeria for a very good reason. The Islamists won power through an election with an explicit policy of abolishing democracy. Resolving that led to a hideous civil war.
And yet it was a democratic vote so why overturn it? Those who wanted to said because to do so was necessary to preserve democracy.
In Corbyn we have a possible PM whose closest advisors are mostly ex-Communists (and not from years ago but recent) and Stalinists who have no instinctive belief in or respect for democracy. Corbyn couldn’t even bring himself to say that the right to private property was a good thing, when asked. McDonnell is on record as saying that he would like property held communally. They could be democratically elected on a platform which would effectively abolish rights that people like you and me hold dear, rights that many consider inalienable and essential to freedom. That is one reason why constitutions and protections are necessary, to ensure that the rulers - whether of the left or right - do not become dictators.
I worry that there are developing in Britain political groupings on both sides with no instinctive love or respect for democracy. Those who are so obsessed by Brexit that they are willing to trample on our constitutional norms to do so are making it easy for others from very different political traditions to do the same.
They should have a care. Judge a power you want to give yourself by asking yourself: “Would I be happy for my political opponent to have this power to use against me?”
On topic, I think Boris is right and Richard Nabavi is wrong.
It's true that the leadership to date has been studiously ignoring the real world and ducking hard choices, and needs to stop doing that very soon. But the right way do that is definitely not through a Conservative Party leadership contest.
The Conservative Party leadership is decided by 150,000 people. Not only are they not representative of voters as a whole, they're probably not even representative of *conservatives*. There's good reason to think they've been heavily entryized by nationalism-addled dimwits. If Boris were to choose this precise moment to suddenly start telling them hard truths, he risks getting beaten by someone advocating something dangerously stupid.
Win the leadership, *then* get real. If he wants a mandate from the electorate for an actual, clearly-defined, possible thing then great, but do that with an election or a referendum where the whole country can participate, not a party membership poll.
So the Tory Membership are to have a confirmatory ballot . But the public aren’t allowed one to rubber stamp whether the UK should leave without a deal.
So if the Tory members suddenly decide they hate Bozo the default is May or the runner up in the leadership !!!
On topic, I think Boris is right and Richard Nabavi is wrong.
It's true that the leadership to date has been studiously ignoring the real world and ducking hard choices, and needs to stop doing that very soon. But the right way do that is definitely not through a Conservative Party leadership contest.
The Conservative Party leadership is decided by 150,000 people. Not only are they not representative of voters as a whole, they're probably not even representative of *conservatives*. There's good reason to think they've been heavily entryized by nationalism-addled dimwits. If Boris were to choose this precise moment to suddenly start telling them hard truths, he risks getting beaten by someone advocating something dangerously stupid.
Win the leadership, *then* get real. If he wants a mandate from the electorate for an actual, clearly-defined, possible thing then great, but do that with an election or a referendum where the whole country can participate, not a party membership poll.
Fine, but a) he would lose an election and b) a referendum would lead to revoking and remaining.
On topic, I think Boris is right and Richard Nabavi is wrong.
It's true that the leadership to date has been studiously ignoring the real world and ducking hard choices, and needs to stop doing that very soon. But the right way do that is definitely not through a Conservative Party leadership contest.
The Conservative Party leadership is decided by 150,000 people. Not only are they not representative of voters as a whole, they're probably not even representative of *conservatives*. There's good reason to think they've been heavily entryized by nationalism-addled dimwits. If Boris were to choose this precise moment to suddenly start telling them hard truths, he risks getting beaten by someone advocating something dangerously stupid.
Win the leadership, *then* get real. If he wants a mandate from the electorate for an actual, clearly-defined, possible thing then great, but do that with an election or a referendum where the whole country can participate, not a party membership poll.
Take your point, but it was more Tory MPs I was thinking about. He could in theory shaft party members with almost complete impunity, but shafting MPs whose votes he needs is a different kettle of fish.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
A fine British tradition surely?
Indeed. Perhaps Conservatives would like to uphold other British traditions?
Amritsar, Peterloo, the Black and Tans, the burning of Cork, the Clearances, systematic rape during the occupation of Japan, the Chuka massacre, cash for access, cash for peerages, suppression of the McCrone Report, the potato famine, the Iraq memo, shoot-to-kill, the South Sea Company, the Bengal famine, the list is endless.
So the Tory Membership are to have a confirmatory ballot . But the public aren’t allowed one to rubber stamp whether the UK should leave without a deal.
So if the Tory members suddenly decide they hate Bozo the default is May or the runner up in the leadership !!!
This story seems to be the Telegraph turning on Boris to be honest. Members will not tolerate a fait accomplis by MPs.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
I think it’s fair to say that unsettled people are very numerous lately. Dave wasn’t much of a Conservative sea anchor, was he?
Yes - Blair destroyed Major’s vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
Cameron was lazy and complacent. He would have done great in Macmillan’s cabinet but wasn’t suitable for today
Blair destroyed Major's vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
How so? And for that matter what did Major ever do to implement his vision?
He accelerated the rate of change - the obvious example is “rubbing [the right’s] nose” in diversity via immigration
Immigration is a good thing economically. But if the rate of immigration is too high it causes cultural dislocation and is harder for the host country to absorb them
I think it was stupid punters to be honest. Massively over valuing her due to getting to last 2 in 2016.
Not sure about that. Someone kept the odds at a remarkably consistent 9.0 or thereabouts.
Anyway, like Alastair I'm grateful to whoever it was.
She kept at that level when it was clearly obvious she was scrabbling for votes to hit the minimum threshold, it even stayed there after final voting but before the announcement. It just doesn't add up for a price manipulation move.
On the other hand Marco Rubio became odds on favourite after finishing 3rd in Iowa. There's a reason I've made the vast majority of my betting winnings on politics and it is because political punters are morons (present company excluded).
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
Do you know who prorogued parliament and ruled by decree? Wee guy with a moustache; liked dogs and children; and vegetarianism; and concentration camps.
It begins by suspending the legislature, and ends in horror. Don’t think it couldn’t happen again. Look how it’s going in Spain, and Hungary, and the Philippines.
Barking mad.
That’s what they said about the 94 brave Social Democrat deputies who voted against the Enabling Act of 1933.
Is it true that the SNP's Arthur Donaldson wanted to make peace with the Nazis?
OMG we’ll be back to the Corn Laws next- goodnight.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
A fine British tradition surely?
Indeed. Perhaps Conservatives would like to uphold other British traditions?
Amritsar, Peterloo, the Black and Tans, the burning of Cork, the Clearances, systematic rape during the occupation of Japan, the Chuka massacre, cash for access, cash for peerages, suppression of the McCrone Report, the potato famine, the Iraq memo, shoot-to-kill, the South Sea Company, the Bengal famine, the list is endless.
I don't see why everyone is saying that nothing has changed. We've just had the EU elections and there's a completely new EU parliament.
Since the EU is democratic institution then this would naturally lead to a completely new direction for the Brexit negotiations and the EU in general.
So it makes perfect sense to try and reopen negotiations.
Welcome.
The EU essentially has three preconditions to negotiations. One, to do with citizen rights is uncontroversial to most people. The second is only money. The third the is the blocker. The Irish "backstop" - actually the requirement that Northern Ireland must not diverge from a Republic of Ireland in the EU.
The EU won't budge from these conditions. Everything else is up for negotiation. But it was anyway, with "May's Deal"
And if their conditions cannot be net then they are not negotiating in good faith
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
Do you know who prorogued parliament and ruled by decree? Wee guy with a moustache; liked dogs and children; and vegetarianism; and concentration camps.
It begins by suspending the legislature, and ends in horror. Don’t think it couldn’t happen again. Look how it’s going in Spain, and Hungary, and the Philippines.
Barking mad.
That’s what they said about the 94 brave Social Democrat deputies who voted against the Enabling Act of 1933.
I appreciate that comfortably off people would like to be living in a kind of 1930's theme park. But, be serious.
You mean like Dominic Raab advocating proroguing parliament? Serious like that?
Fine, but a) he would lose an election and b) a referendum would lead to revoking and remaining.
Where would that leave the Tory Party?
a) Assuming he lost to Corbyn, it would leave them in opposition to a bad, unpopular Prime Minister leading a split party trying to make brexit go away.
b) Basically where it was before Cameron started trying to get clever. An angry chunk of voters would be backing Farage, but for most voters their thing would be thought to have been put to the test and failed, and even many of the people who voted for it a second time would be sick of it.
Finally, there's also (c) where he wins the referendum and does an elegant, non-car-crash brexit with a popular mandate, which would be a pretty great position for the PM to be in, although there would still be a bunch of Faragists angry that they didn't get their car crash.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
I think it’s fair to say that unsettled people are very numerous lately. Dave wasn’t much of a Conservative sea anchor, was he?
Yes - Blair destroyed Major’s vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
Cameron was lazy and complacent. He would have done great in Macmillan’s cabinet but wasn’t suitable for today
Blair destroyed Major's vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
How so? And for that matter what did Major ever do to implement his vision?
He accelerated the rate of change - the obvious example is “rubbing [the right’s] nose” in diversity via immigration
Immigration is a good thing economically. But if the rate of immigration is too high it causes cultural dislocation and is harder for the host country to absorb them
Immigration is as much an issue of quality as quantity.
In the dark watches the long night, who do Corbyn and Farage in their heart of hearts want to win the Tory leadership? Who best assists their chances, aims and objectives? Answers on a postcard. Whatever are the true answers would tell us quite a lot.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
I think it’s fair to say that unsettled people are very numerous lately. Dave wasn’t much of a Conservative sea anchor, was he?
Yes - Blair destroyed Major’s vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
Which was itself a reaction to the upheaval under Thatcher and in defiance of the civil war being conducted in his party.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
I think its a poor idea, but let's dispense with absurd hyperbole
It would be an abandonment of basic democratic principles in an attempt to impose a decision that would be difficult to reverse. It’s rather worse than a “poor idea”. It would be an assault on Britain’s status as a democracy.
But, comparing it to concentration camps?
A fine British tradition surely?
Indeed. Perhaps Conservatives would like to uphold other British traditions?
Amritsar, Peterloo, the Black and Tans, the burning of Cork, the Clearances, systematic rape during the occupation of Japan, the Chuka massacre, cash for access, cash for peerages, suppression of the McCrone Report, the potato famine, the Iraq memo, shoot-to-kill, the South Sea Company, the Bengal famine, the list is endless.
You forgot The Bodyline Series.
Don’t get me going on British sporting scandals and cheats.
In the dark watches the long night, who do Corbyn and Farage in their heart of hearts want to win the Tory leadership? Who best assists their chances, aims and objectives? Answers on a postcard. Whatever are the true answers would tell us quite a lot.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
How would Hunt be hard to beat? Where would these voters come from?
On topic, I think Boris is right and Richard Nabavi is wrong.
It's true that the leadership to date has been studiously ignoring the real world and ducking hard choices, and needs to stop doing that very soon. But the right way do that is definitely not through a Conservative Party leadership contest.
The Conservative Party leadership is decided by 150,000 people. Not only are they not representative of voters as a whole, they're probably not even representative of *conservatives*. There's good reason to think they've been heavily entryized by nationalism-addled dimwits. If Boris were to choose this precise moment to suddenly start telling them hard truths, he risks getting beaten by someone advocating something dangerously stupid.
Win the leadership, *then* get real. If he wants a mandate from the electorate for an actual, clearly-defined, possible thing then great, but do that with an election or a referendum where the whole country can participate, not a party membership poll.
Fine, but a) he would lose an election and b) a referendum would lead to revoking and remaining.
Where would that leave the Tory Party?
Lose an election to whom? Magic Grandpa offering a delayed shite version of Brexit? No. To Farage when Boris is offering so,most instant no deal? No.
She kept at that level when it was clearly obvious she was scrabbling for votes to hit the minimum threshold, it even stayed there after final voting but before the announcement. It just doesn't add up for a price manipulation move.
Just when I was feeling satisfied with my Betfair balance, thanks to that Leadsom market that never stopped giving and a tidy profit on Boris getting 100+ votes...
I log into my account and find it about £150 light. Instapanic. Has something gone horribly wrong? Did I get really drunk and do something stupid?
Turns out I'd stayed logged in yesterday evening and the wife had been using my account to play - shudder - 'casino games'.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
I'd have thought that Farage's dream result is a Tory leader who solemnly and repeatedly promises a 31st October Brexit and then fails to deliver it, as Theresa May failed to deliver the 29th March. Which is probably what he will get.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
I think it’s fair to say that unsettled people are very numerous lately. Dave wasn’t much of a Conservative sea anchor, was he?
Yes - Blair destroyed Major’s vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
Cameron was lazy and complacent. He would have done great in Macmillan’s cabinet but wasn’t suitable for today
Blair destroyed Major's vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
How so? And for that matter what did Major ever do to implement his vision?
He accelerated the rate of change - the obvious example is “rubbing [the right’s] nose” in diversity via immigration
Immigration is a good thing economically. But if the rate of immigration is too high it causes cultural dislocation and is harder for the host country to absorb them
Immigration is as much an issue of quality as quantity.
Debatable.
But what is clear is that states with clean, decent media (eg Sweden) tolerate higher immigration than states with scumbag media (eg the Yookay).
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
Don't disclose the following numbers (because it's personal information and this is the internet!), but bank balance is not enough info to categorise wealth. Salary, positive equity and credit limit are also important, arguably more so.
I don’t have a credit limit. Does that make me deprived?
So the Tory Membership are to have a confirmatory ballot . But the public aren’t allowed one to rubber stamp whether the UK should leave without a deal.
So if the Tory members suddenly decide they hate Bozo the default is May or the runner up in the leadership !!!
This story seems to be the Telegraph turning on Boris to be honest. Members will not tolerate a fait accomplis by MPs.
Tbh love him or hate him Boris is the only one who can rescue the tories from the mess Theresa May has left them in with her crap deal and failed GE and minority government . He is the only one who can smash corbyn who is the biggest threat to our country since WW2. Yes yes far from perfect, but I do think he has the charisma and gumption to lead us through brexit and unite the country again . We don’t need 6 weeks of blue on blue let’s just get on with the obvious answer to the tories current dilemma with the brexit party sucking the life out of them and the mess that is the Labour Party . The survival of the Tory party is at stake , none of the other contenders can deliver victory at an election. Crown Boris now!
Fine, but a) he would lose an election and b) a referendum would lead to revoking and remaining.
Where would that leave the Tory Party?
a) Assuming he lost to Corbyn, it would leave them in opposition to a bad, unpopular Prime Minister leading a split party trying to make brexit go away.
b) Basically where it was before Cameron started trying to get clever. An angry chunk of voters would be backing Farage, but for most voters their thing would be thought to have been put to the test and failed, and even many of the people who voted for it a second time would be sick of it.
Finally, there's also (c) where he wins the referendum and does an elegant, non-car-crash brexit with a popular mandate, which would be a pretty great position for the PM to be in, although there would still be a bunch of Faragists angry that they didn't get their car crash.
Lose to Corbyn? Yes, if they're lucky. Or to Farage, Swinson, Starmer or AN Other if they're not. And what makes you think the Tories will win enough seats to form the opposition? The circumstances in which a General election would take place (almost certainly beyond 31st October) are likely to be poisonous for them.
Where it was pre-Cameron? Again, yes if very very lucky indeed. A wipeout is not only possible, but much more likely.
I do agree with c) though. If he does indeed find a cornucopia of magic unicorns, he will be living in La-La Land.
I think it was stupid punters to be honest. Massively over valuing her due to getting to last 2 in 2016.
Not sure about that. Someone kept the odds at a remarkably consistent 9.0 or thereabouts.
Anyway, like Alastair I'm grateful to whoever it was.
On the other hand Marco Rubio became odds on favourite after finishing 3rd in Iowa. There's a reason I've made the vast majority of my betting winnings on politics and it is because political punters are morons (present company excluded).
I too run a modest profit on my political bets and modest losses mostly on the footy (apart from £1 e/w on Leicester winning the PL!)
Political betting is one area where knowledge is helpful. These are not random chance events, and it is possible to know more than the other side of the bet fairly readily.
Comments
I view that as preferable and more robust than a more idealistic constitution that's set from the top-down.
I'd view any Government that rode roughshod through our uncodified constitution with little or no respect very unfavourably.
I'm just contesting the foaming assertion at the heart of William's argument.
At least malcolmg is entertaining.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tXBC-71aZs
And, I don't agree with it.
Edit/ even better, according to WP they deregistered some years back. So the vacancy is there for the Tories...
Not that I'm jealous or anything..
In the short term though that means No could still narrowly win any indyref2 even with No Deal because the pensioner vote will go strongly against independence (albeit it would be very close). Longer term though hard Brexit or no hard Brexit only devomax has a chance of saving the union
And especially if its someone else's GDP
You say you prefer politics. But politics is intimately involved in constitutions, as a look at the vigorous debates which the Founding Fathers had before they drew up the US Constitution, will tell you. They are not alternatives.
And being without such protections means that parties or politicians who do not fundamentally believe in democracy or, for instance, the right to private property or free speech can play merry hell and abolish democracy. See, for instance, what happened when Islamists won elections in Algeria.
Astonishingly a bunch of rich lying spivs managed to dupe those with not much to vote for even less.
The legitimising of attempts to dismantle Britain’s civic structures is among the worse consequences of Brexit. Britain’s democracy now has serious internal enemies for the first time in generations.
I prefer our constitution as it is, and for it to be respected as such.
Comparing us to Algeria is hyperbole.
What I do know is the sneering contempt many really have for the working class, poorer and leave voting areas up north. They really think they are superior to them.
It’s no longer just about leaving the EU of course - it’s deeper than that on many levels. It’s essentially a culture and values war!
It begins by suspending the legislature, and ends in horror. Don’t think it couldn’t happen again. Look how it’s going in Spain, and Hungary, and the Philippines.
It is extraordinary how scepticism about the EU, something which quite a few Remainers share, has in the hands of the ardent Brexiteers, morphed into something so obsessive and monomaniacal that they are prepared to trample all over everything they previously claimed to hold dear.
Puzzling.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/14/revealed-secret-tory-plan-members-crown-boris-johnson-new-leader/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/14/rory-stewart-give-tory-party-emmanuel-macron-moment/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
It was the Spanish in Cuba:
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/reconcentrado.htm
They are very different.
Regarding Brexit the Tories and trade, if you want to leave the politics of the EU I get that. But why leave the Single Market (EFTA) which is explicitly not the EU or the political super state? And why bang on about rule takers knowing that we will need to accept the rules of every state we sign FTAs with and not have any say in those rules?
Regarding the living on the edge people who voted leave as they only just get by. I get their anger and their vote. But in reality the thing they voted for makes it worse. I respect the MPs in leave areas who have examined and marshalled the facts and are standing up for the needs of their constituents even as those same people call them traitor
No more than it is correct to suggest everyone in London is a people’s vote backing uber remainer.
However, I'm disappointed that you missed out "people who say 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested'."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/14/revealed-secret-tory-plan-members-crown-boris-johnson-new-leader/
I give the example of Algeria for a very good reason. The Islamists won power through an election with an explicit policy of abolishing democracy. Resolving that led to a hideous civil war.
And yet it was a democratic vote so why overturn it? Those who wanted to said because to do so was necessary to preserve democracy.
In Corbyn we have a possible PM whose closest advisors are mostly ex-Communists (and not from years ago but recent) and Stalinists who have no instinctive belief in or respect for democracy. Corbyn couldn’t even bring himself to say that the right to private property was a good thing, when asked. McDonnell is on record as saying that he would like property held communally. They could be democratically elected on a platform which would effectively abolish rights that people like you and me hold dear, rights that many consider inalienable and essential to freedom. That is one reason why constitutions and protections are necessary, to ensure that the rulers - whether of the left or right - do not become dictators.
I worry that there are developing in Britain political groupings on both sides with no instinctive love or respect for democracy. Those who are so obsessed by Brexit that they are willing to trample on our constitutional norms to do so are making it easy for others from very different political traditions to do the same.
They should have a care. Judge a power you want to give yourself by asking yourself: “Would I be happy for my political opponent to have this power to use against me?”
It's true that the leadership to date has been studiously ignoring the real world and ducking hard choices, and needs to stop doing that very soon. But the right way do that is definitely not through a Conservative Party leadership contest.
The Conservative Party leadership is decided by 150,000 people. Not only are they not representative of voters as a whole, they're probably not even representative of *conservatives*. There's good reason to think they've been heavily entryized by nationalism-addled dimwits. If Boris were to choose this precise moment to suddenly start telling them hard truths, he risks getting beaten by someone advocating something dangerously stupid.
Win the leadership, *then* get real. If he wants a mandate from the electorate for an actual, clearly-defined, possible thing then great, but do that with an election or a referendum where the whole country can participate, not a party membership poll.
Anyway, like Alastair I'm grateful to whoever it was.
So if the Tory members suddenly decide they hate Bozo the default is May or the runner up in the leadership !!!
Where would that leave the Tory Party?
Amritsar, Peterloo, the Black and Tans, the burning of Cork, the Clearances, systematic rape during the occupation of Japan, the Chuka massacre, cash for access, cash for peerages, suppression of the McCrone Report, the potato famine, the Iraq memo, shoot-to-kill, the South Sea Company, the Bengal famine, the list is endless.
Immigration is a good thing economically. But if the rate of immigration is too high it causes cultural dislocation and is harder for the host country to absorb them
On the other hand Marco Rubio became odds on favourite after finishing 3rd in Iowa. There's a reason I've made the vast majority of my betting winnings on politics and it is because political punters are morons (present company excluded).
b) Basically where it was before Cameron started trying to get clever. An angry chunk of voters would be backing Farage, but for most voters their thing would be thought to have been put to the test and failed, and even many of the people who voted for it a second time would be sick of it.
Finally, there's also (c) where he wins the referendum and does an elegant, non-car-crash brexit with a popular mandate, which would be a pretty great position for the PM to be in, although there would still be a bunch of Faragists angry that they didn't get their car crash.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
Just when I was feeling satisfied with my Betfair balance, thanks to that Leadsom market that never stopped giving and a tidy profit on Boris getting 100+ votes...
I log into my account and find it about £150 light. Instapanic. Has something gone horribly wrong? Did I get really drunk and do something stupid?
Turns out I'd stayed logged in yesterday evening and the wife had been using my account to play - shudder - 'casino games'.
FFS...
But what is clear is that states with clean, decent media (eg Sweden) tolerate higher immigration than states with scumbag media (eg the Yookay).
(Although his main point was gdp not money)
Where it was pre-Cameron? Again, yes if very very lucky indeed. A wipeout is not only possible, but much more likely.
I do agree with c) though. If he does indeed find a cornucopia of magic unicorns, he will be living in La-La Land.
Won't we all?
Political betting is one area where knowledge is helpful. These are not random chance events, and it is possible to know more than the other side of the bet fairly readily.