Both leaders of the old parties are hindered by their history of disloyalty:
“One of Mr Johnson’s most vainglorious boasts has been to tell Tories that he can “unite the party and then the country”. A feature of his premiership, as of hers, will be Number 10 pleading with Tory MPs to fall into line. These exhortations will have scant traction with the significant number who feel they owe no loyalty to a man who displayed none to either of his predecessors as prime minister.”
My thoughts precisely. I like FPTP because you can change the government. If that means a very pro-EU Lib Dem government, I’ll accept it, even if I might not like it.
This is one of those fallacies put about by proponents of FPTP. It doesn't stop "radical" Governments if the radical message is genuinely popular. Nor does it prevent changes of Government.
My guess is as we have seen elsewhere there would be a centre-right grouping of parties and a centre-left grouping of parties, perhaps one or two moving between the two blocs and parties sitting wholly outside the blocs. That's called plural democracy and it's no bad thing.
Each party would be an ideologically tighter and more distinct grouping as the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voting coalitions separated into more clearly defined groups.
I think you have misunderstood. I think they were saying the ability to elect a radical government, as well as being able to change the government, was a good thing
My thoughts precisely. I like FPTP because you can change the government. If that means a very pro-EU Lib Dem government, I’ll accept it, even if I might not like it.
This is one of those fallacies put about by proponents of FPTP. It doesn't stop "radical" Governments if the radical message is genuinely popular. Nor does it prevent changes of Government.
My guess is as we have seen elsewhere there would be a centre-right grouping of parties and a centre-left grouping of parties, perhaps one or two moving between the two blocs and parties sitting wholly outside the blocs. That's called plural democracy and it's no bad thing.
Each party would be an ideologically tighter and more distinct grouping as the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voting coalitions separated into more clearly defined groups.
I think you have misunderstood. I think they were saying the ability to elect a radical government, as well as being able to change the government, was a good thing
Who wants a radical government supported by barely a third of voters and a quarter of adults? The path to madness.
Mr. That, ah. Perhaps, but Blair won a comfortable majority in 2005 with... 35% of the vote, was it?
The Lib Dems and others have bleated for a long time that the voting system is mean to them and it'd be right and just to change the system to their advantage, but with all the recent political turbulence this sort of thing will not be on the agenda, potentially excepting a referendum as part of a coalition deal.
Personally I’m not nearly as worried about FPTP as @kyf_100 - if the Lib Dem’s win a majority on 35% (or less) of the vote, so be it. Likewise the Tories or TBP.
MPs had their chance to secure Brexit, they didn’t, and now they have to accept the consequences, whatever they may be.
I know the old saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but with FPTP allowing a majority at 35%ish, it's not even that. It's one wolf eating two sheep.
It means that Brexit Party could take us out of the EU without a deal, or Corbyn could embark the country on the path to full socialism with the consent of just one third of the populace.
In saner times, FPTP works. But the stakes now are much higher. Because as Cyclefree points out, parties no longer believe their duty is to the country. It is to ideological purity. Is a no deal brexit to be foist on the entire country because one third of the population believes in it? Is hard left socialism?
The kind of policies now being espoused by the main parties should require majority consent. They don't, and that will be revealed as a major failiure of our democracy when a radical party takes control of the country under FPTP.
The basic traditional strength of FPTP is not that it “requires” Govts to act with the consent of a majority of the electorate. In fact almost by definition this is not required. It is that if Govt’s pursue radical change it will only likely endure if they can take significant support with them along the way. Because whereas many may ‘normally’ vote for their party of first choice, our system allow them to coalesce in opposition to unfavourable Govts. And kick them out.
I'm not certain that if Farage becomes PM with the support of one third of the country, then takes us out of the EU without a deal, he'll need "significant support along the way" to make it stick.
Once we're out we're out, and the EU will like as not want us back, even if Brexit proves to be an unmitigated disaster. And why would they, when the quirks of our electoral system mean that one party could drag us out of the EU even when the majority are against it?
So long as Brexit remains the issue of the day I'm not comfortable with FPTP deciding how or whether it happens. A majority rather than a plurality should decide where we go from here.
Both leaders of the old parties are hindered by their history of disloyalty:
“One of Mr Johnson’s most vainglorious boasts has been to tell Tories that he can “unite the party and then the country”. A feature of his premiership, as of hers, will be Number 10 pleading with Tory MPs to fall into line. These exhortations will have scant traction with the significant number who feel they owe no loyalty to a man who displayed none to either of his predecessors as prime minister.”
Boris voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3, voted for the Brady amendment and did not vote to try and stop No Deal last week, there have been worse rebels than Boris
My thoughts precisely. I like FPTP because you can change the government. If that means a very pro-EU Lib Dem government, I’ll accept it, even if I might not like it.
This is one of those fallacies put about by proponents of FPTP. It doesn't stop "radical" Governments if the radical message is genuinely popular. Nor does it prevent changes of Government.
My guess is as we have seen elsewhere there would be a centre-right grouping of parties and a centre-left grouping of parties, perhaps one or two moving between the two blocs and parties sitting wholly outside the blocs. That's called plural democracy and it's no bad thing.
Each party would be an ideologically tighter and more distinct grouping as the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voting coalitions separated into more clearly defined groups.
I think you have misunderstood. I think they were saying the ability to elect a radical government, as well as being able to change the government, was a good thing
Who wants a radical government supported by barely a third of voters and a quarter of adults? The path to madness.
I assume any referendum on changing the voting system will require 50% of all adults to agree?
Stodge, have your read Holacracy, or Reinventing Organizations? I think you'd enjoy both as another view of how groups should make decisions as locally as possible, but in a scalable manner.
Thank you my friend. Might be useful for a work project with which I am involved.
An interesting thread header, but what will the long term democratic implications of Brexit (As I expect) not being delivered in any way shape or form. I think it'll show fundamentally that no decision taken actually has to take place, particularly if the people who took the original decision are the "little people" for want of a better word. It might be the right decision, but like the abysmal moral hazard caused by the 2008 GFC bailouts (Which was probably fundamental to both the Brexit decision and Trump) will have profound unintended consequences into the future. If Brexit does not go ahead in a soft form in the next couple of years, we could still head to leaving without a deal in the next decade or so - if TBP trump the Tories as Boris the bluffer "shakes with fear upon hearing the consequences of no deal" we could yet head to ship wreck waters. It took 8 years from the crash to Trump, who knows where we might be from the non implementation of a soft Brexit ?
Indeed.
You can extend it further that Brexit and Trump are consequences of the failings of the state organisations to operate equally on behalf of the 'little people' and to regulate themselves properly.
Why shouldn't such state organisations be then criticised - respect and trust has to be earned and should never be taken as a given.
My thoughts precisely. I like FPTP because you can change the government. If that means a very pro-EU Lib Dem government, I’ll accept it, even if I might not like it.
This is one of those fallacies put about by proponents of FPTP. It doesn't stop "radical" Governments if the radical message is genuinely popular. Nor does it prevent changes of Government.
My guess is as we have seen elsewhere there would be a centre-right grouping of parties and a centre-left grouping of parties, perhaps one or two moving between the two blocs and parties sitting wholly outside the blocs. That's called plural democracy and it's no bad thing.
Each party would be an ideologically tighter and more distinct grouping as the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voting coalitions separated into more clearly defined groups.
I think you have misunderstood. I think they were saying the ability to elect a radical government, as well as being able to change the government, was a good thing
Who wants a radical government supported by barely a third of voters and a quarter of adults? The path to madness.
I assume any referendum on changing the voting system will require 50% of all adults to agree?
If opponents of our crooked voting system ever manage to overcome its biases and gain a majority, they deserve to scrap it without a referendum.
My thoughts precisely. I like FPTP because you can change the government. If that means a very pro-EU Lib Dem government, I’ll accept it, even if I might not like it.
This is one of those fallacies put about by proponents of FPTP. It doesn't stop "radical" Governments if the radical message is genuinely popular. Nor does it prevent changes of Government.
My guess is as we have seen elsewhere there would be a centre-right grouping of parties and a centre-left grouping of parties, perhaps one or two moving between the two blocs and parties sitting wholly outside the blocs. That's called plural democracy and it's no bad thing.
Each party would be an ideologically tighter and more distinct grouping as the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voting coalitions separated into more clearly defined groups.
I think you have misunderstood. I think they were saying the ability to elect a radical government, as well as being able to change the government, was a good thing
Who wants a radical government supported by barely a third of voters and a quarter of adults? The path to madness.
I think that when parties reject the idea that they can be broad coalitions of interests, it forces us to look again at PR. In a world in which we insist that referendums override parliamentary democracy, it is even more important that any government implementing such decisions represent more than one set of interests. PR has become not just an issue of fairness to the unrepresented minorities, but to the probable disempowered majorities.
Mr. That, ah. Perhaps, but Blair won a comfortable majority in 2005 with... 35% of the vote, was it?
The Lib Dems and others have bleated for a long time that the voting system is mean to them and it'd be right and just to change the system to their advantage, but with all the recent political turbulence this sort of thing will not be on the agenda, potentially excepting a referendum as part of a coalition deal.
He did indeed. However, to make my point rather, he skedaddled and left GB holding the baby with a very unpopular government which was then replaced by a weak coalition government with leaders chosen by their parties for their superficial similarities to Mr. Blair.
My thoughts precisely. I like FPTP because you can change the government. If that means a very pro-EU Lib Dem government, I’ll accept it, even if I might not like it.
This is one of those fallacies put about by proponents of FPTP. It doesn't stop "radical" Governments if the radical message is genuinely popular. Nor does it prevent changes of Government.
My guess is as we have seen elsewhere there would be a centre-right grouping of parties and a centre-left grouping of parties, perhaps one or two moving between the two blocs and parties sitting wholly outside the blocs. That's called plural democracy and it's no bad thing.
Each party would be an ideologically tighter and more distinct grouping as the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voting coalitions separated into more clearly defined groups.
I think you have misunderstood. I think they were saying the ability to elect a radical government, as well as being able to change the government, was a good thing
Who wants a radical government supported by barely a third of voters and a quarter of adults? The path to madness.
I assume any referendum on changing the voting system will require 50% of all adults to agree?
I hope that the system will be changed without a referendum. If PR is in the manifesto of the winning party/parties then for god's sake just get on and introduce it.
My thoughts precisely. I like FPTP because you can change the government. If that means a very pro-EU Lib Dem government, I’ll accept it, even if I might not like it.
This is one of those fallacies put about by proponents of FPTP. It doesn't stop "radical" Governments if the radical message is genuinely popular. Nor does it prevent changes of Government.
My guess is as we have seen elsewhere there would be a centre-right grouping of parties and a centre-left grouping of parties, perhaps one or two moving between the two blocs and parties sitting wholly outside the blocs. That's called plural democracy and it's no bad thing.
Each party would be an ideologically tighter and more distinct grouping as the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voting coalitions separated into more clearly defined groups.
I think you have misunderstood. I think they were saying the ability to elect a radical government, as well as being able to change the government, was a good thing
Who wants a radical government supported by barely a third of voters and a quarter of adults? The path to madness.
I assume any referendum on changing the voting system will require 50% of all adults to agree?
I hope that the system will be changed without a referendum. If PR is in the manifesto of the winning party/parties then for god's sake just get on and introduce it.
Are the Contents of International Treaties Copied and Pasted? Evidence from Preferential Trade Agreements https://academic.oup.com/isq/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isq/sqz029/5531760 Abstract Most accounts of international negotiations suggest that global agreements are individually crafted and distinct, while some emerging scholarship suggests a heavy reliance on models and templates. In this research, we present a comprehensive test of whether new international treaties are heavily copied and pasted from past ones. We specify several reasons to expect widespread copying and pasting, and argue that both the most and least powerful countries should be most likely to do so. Using text analysis to examine several hundred preferential trade agreements (PTAs), we reveal that most PTAs copy a sizable majority of their content word for word from an earlier agreement. At least one hundred PTAs take 80 percent or more of their contents directly from a single, existing treaty—with many copying and pasting 95 percent or more. These numbers climb even higher when we compare important substantive chapters of trade agreements, many of which are copied and pasted verbatim. Such copying and pasting is most prevalent among low-capacity governments that lean heavily on existing templates, and powerful states that desire to spread their preferred rules globally. This widespread replication of existing treaty language reshapes how we think about international cooperation, and it has important implications for literatures on institutional design, policy diffusion, state power, and legal fragmentation.
My thoughts precisely. I like FPTP because you can change the government. If that means a very pro-EU Lib Dem government, I’ll accept it, even if I might not like it.
This is one of those fallacies put about by proponents of FPTP. It doesn't stop "radical" Governments if the radical message is genuinely popular. Nor does it prevent changes of Government.
My guess is as we have seen elsewhere there would be a centre-right grouping of parties and a centre-left grouping of parties, perhaps one or two moving between the two blocs and parties sitting wholly outside the blocs. That's called plural democracy and it's no bad thing.
Each party would be an ideologically tighter and more distinct grouping as the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voting coalitions separated into more clearly defined groups.
I think you have misunderstood. I think they were saying the ability to elect a radical government, as well as being able to change the government, was a good thing
Who wants a radical government supported by barely a third of voters and a quarter of adults? The path to madness.
I assume any referendum on changing the voting system will require 50% of all adults to agree?
If opponents of our crooked voting system ever manage to overcome its biases and gain a majority, they deserve to scrap it without a referendum.
People still seem really keen on proportional representation leading to the need for much more co-operation between parties, in spite of the fact that the parties seem to be less & less keen on co-operating with anyone.
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes. Does anyone know (Cyclefree herself would !) if she is published elsewhere - or is PB her only outlet ?
Thank you. I write a blog on my work website. But my articles on politics are only published on PB.
Mr. That, ah. Perhaps, but Blair won a comfortable majority in 2005 with... 35% of the vote, was it?
The Lib Dems and others have bleated for a long time that the voting system is mean to them and it'd be right and just to change the system to their advantage, but with all the recent political turbulence this sort of thing will not be on the agenda, potentially excepting a referendum as part of a coalition deal.
I don't believe a party polling 10% or 20% of the votes should be shut out of the Commons because of the geographical distribution of that vote nor that my vote in East Ham should be valueless because I live in a seat with a big Labour majority. My vote is counted but it doesn't count because the GE is 650 separate local contests not a "general" election.
This notion of constituencies and "knowing your MP" belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. Votes should count equally wherever they are cast and the legislature should reflect the proportionality of votes cast not the geographical accident of where they are cast.
Both leaders of the old parties are hindered by their history of disloyalty:
“One of Mr Johnson’s most vainglorious boasts has been to tell Tories that he can “unite the party and then the country”. A feature of his premiership, as of hers, will be Number 10 pleading with Tory MPs to fall into line. These exhortations will have scant traction with the significant number who feel they owe no loyalty to a man who displayed none to either of his predecessors as prime minister.”
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes. Does anyone know (Cyclefree herself would !) if she is published elsewhere - or is PB her only outlet ?
Thank you. I write a blog on my work website. But my articles on politics are only published on PB.
Oh it's about Politics - I thought PB had just turned into gardeners question time for the day.
Anyway, in all seriousness-
"Attacks on any sort of independent institution or attempts to delegitimise them or a refusal to defend them (the BBC, the EHRC; the judiciary)."
So if I don't defend the BBC I'm some sort of fascist? Or indeed ANY SORT OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUION
People still seem really keen on proportional representation leading to the need for much more co-operation between parties, in spite of the fact that the parties seem to be less & less keen on co-operating with anyone.
Good evening, everyone.
Yes, I think a proportional system and thereby a more plural system would inevitably lead to closer co-operation. In truth, if we had PR we would move to a centre-right versus centre-left scenario with each as a bloc of parties working together.
The only difference is you'd have three or four parties in each bloc instead of one as now. You'd have a party or two moving between the blocs (analogous to the FDP in Germany perhaps?) and parties sitting outside the main blocs.
Those expecting a change in the voting system to produce a revolution in the political system are going to be disappointed, those expecting an evolution aren't.
Problem with Cyclefree's article (reference some unkind remarks about it) is that it falls into the category of shouldn't need to be said, but does. I can understand why some readers might not be interested.
Winning a referendum isn't a substitute for making politics work for most people.
Dems need to ignore Trump and talk about ObamaCare.
Dems need to talk about Obamacare and impeach Trump.
No. They haven't got the votes to impeach, so it is a massive distraction and will only make his base more secure.
Support for impeaching Trump is at the levels of support for impeaching Nixon. Once impeachment proceedings started support for finding him guilty sky rocketed.
The Dems need sound bites of Rep Senators defending him. Trump's base is secure no matter what. It is low info swing voters the Dems need to get and daily impeachment hearings will get the News Networks doing their job for them.
2016 was about Dem base not turning out. Failing to impeach Trump does not energise the Dem base.
Clearly the hot take will be Harris surging to 16%.
Rather that she possibly has more to win, and more to lose than any other candidate in the debates at the end of this month. The three in front of her are more established in voters’ minds, Biden and Sanders far more so. She could have a further surge, justifying her current betting odds, or be back in the chasing pack with Buttigieg.
Clearly the hot take will be Harris surging to 16%.
Saw another piece of research that showed that Warren was getting virtually none of the Obama bundlers. I think that means her upside is limited to Bernie's downside
Clearly the hot take will be Harris surging to 16%.
Saw another piece of research that showed that Warren was getting virtually none of the Obama bundlers. I think that means her upside is limited to Bernie's downside
I don’t think it works quite like that anymore. There is less correlation between patterns of big money fundraising and voting patterns (note the large percentage of Biden and Sanders voters who put the other candidate as their second choice).
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes. Does anyone know (Cyclefree herself would !) if she is published elsewhere - or is PB her only outlet ?
Thank you. I write a blog on my work website. But my articles on politics are only published on PB.
Oh it's about Politics - I thought PB had just turned into gardeners question time for the day.
Anyway, in all seriousness-
"Attacks on any sort of independent institution or attempts to delegitimise them or a refusal to defend them (the BBC, the EHRC; the judiciary)."
So if I don't defend the BBC I'm some sort of fascist? Or indeed ANY SORT OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUION
Honestly, what planet do you write from.
Dare I suggest you look at the specific examples I list. I don’t believe and have not said that not defending the BBC makes you a fascist. I do criticise the approach of politicians to independent institutions who are there to scrutinise them, because our rulers submitting themselves to scrutiny is essential to democracy.
But when the Lord Chancellor fails to defend the judiciary when they do their job despite being under a legal duty to do so, that is worrying. When a political party (Labour) tries to get a programme taken off air (the Panorama programme on anti-semitism) or suggests that the body charged with investigating it (the EHRC) be closed down, rather than deal with the substance of the issue, that suggests politicians resistant to scrutiny and willing to silence anyone asking awkward questions. That is worrying.
It worries me, anyway, even if it doesn’t worry you.
People still seem really keen on proportional representation leading to the need for much more co-operation between parties, in spite of the fact that the parties seem to be less & less keen on co-operating with anyone.
Good evening, everyone.
Yes, I think a proportional system and thereby a more plural system would inevitably lead to closer co-operation. In truth, if we had PR we would move to a centre-right versus centre-left scenario with each as a bloc of parties working together.
The only difference is you'd have three or four parties in each bloc instead of one as now. You'd have a party or two moving between the blocs (analogous to the FDP in Germany perhaps?) and parties sitting outside the main blocs.
Those expecting a change in the voting system to produce a revolution in the political system are going to be disappointed, those expecting an evolution aren't.
With the difference that parties get to advocate strongly for a particular issue, and choosing priorities likely reflects better the choices of the electorate rather than those of a single party heirarchy.
Both leaders of the old parties are hindered by their history of disloyalty:
“One of Mr Johnson’s most vainglorious boasts has been to tell Tories that he can “unite the party and then the country”. A feature of his premiership, as of hers, will be Number 10 pleading with Tory MPs to fall into line. These exhortations will have scant traction with the significant number who feel they owe no loyalty to a man who displayed none to either of his predecessors as prime minister.”
That, at least, is true, although he seems to be on the train of thought that is lauding the worst of the rebels as heroes even though those same rebels are the ones who stopped Brexit from happening.
Interesting contrast between Hammond and IDS. On seems intelligent thoughtful and honest. The other unpleasant uattractive dishonest and stupid. Moreso than any other I can remember except for Michael Howard.
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes. Does anyone know (Cyclefree herself would !) if she is published elsewhere - or is PB her only outlet ?
Thank you. I write a blog on my work website. But my articles on politics are only published on PB.
Oh it's about Politics - I thought PB had just turned into gardeners question time for the day.
Anyway, in all seriousness-
"Attacks on any sort of independent institution or attempts to delegitimise them or a refusal to defend them (the BBC, the EHRC; the judiciary)."
So if I don't defend the BBC I'm some sort of fascist? Or indeed ANY SORT OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUION
Honestly, what planet do you write from.
Dare I suggest you look at the specific examples I list. I don’t believe and have not said that not defending the BBC makes you a fascist. I do criticise the approach of politicians to independent institutions who are there to scrutinise them, because our rulers submitting themselves to scrutiny is essential to democracy.
But when the Lord Chancellor fails to defend the judiciary when they do their job despite being under a legal duty to do so, that is worrying. When a political party (Labour) tries to get a programme taken off air (the Panorama programme on anti-semitism) or suggests that the body charged with investigating it (the EHRC) be closed down, rather than deal with the substance of the issue, that suggests politicians resistant to scrutiny and willing to silence anyone asking awkward questions. That is worrying.
It worries me, anyway, even if it doesn’t worry you.
Yes you've listed specific examples.
The BBC sticks out like a sore thumb. But it was you that said "Any sort of independent institution"
Your ideological stance and political training worries me. Where do you want power to lie exactly.
I take it you are, for example, someone who thinks we should dismiss the 2016 referendum result?
I know the old saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but with FPTP allowing a majority at 35%ish, it's not even that. It's one wolf eating two sheep.
My concern is that you end up with a highly disproportionate vote. So, say, the LibDems come in second with 29% of the vote, but have (irony or ironies) a good distribution, then they could end up with a majority. Or perhaps we have a party topping the polls, but third in number of seats.
A result like that, especially given how polarised our politics is, could poison our system. (Yes, even more than now.)
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes. Does anyone know (Cyclefree herself would !) if she is published elsewhere - or is PB her only outlet ?
Thank you. I write a blog on my work website. But my articles on politics are only published on PB.
Oh it's about Politics - I thought PB had just turned into gardeners question time for the day.
Anyway, in all seriousness-
"Attacks on any sort of independent institution or attempts to delegitimise them or a refusal to defend them (the BBC, the EHRC; the judiciary)."
So if I don't defend the BBC I'm some sort of fascist? Or indeed ANY SORT OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUION
Honestly, what planet do you write from.
Dare I suggest you look at the specific examples I list. I don’t believe and have not said that not defending the BBC makes you a fascist. I do criticise the approach of politicians to independent institutions who are there to scrutinise them, because our rulers submitting themselves to scrutiny is essential to democracy.
But when the Lord Chancellor fails to defend the judiciary when they do their job despite being under a legal duty to do so, that is worrying. When a political party (Labour) tries to get a programme taken off air (the Panorama programme on anti-semitism) or suggests that the body charged with investigating it (the EHRC) be closed down, rather than deal with the substance of the issue, that suggests politicians resistant to scrutiny and willing to silence anyone asking awkward questions. That is worrying.
It worries me, anyway, even if it doesn’t worry you.
Yes you've listed specific examples.
The BBC sticks out like a sore thumb. But it was you that said "Any sort of independent institution"
Your ideological stance and political training worries me. Where do you want power to lie exactly.
I take it you are, for example, someone who thinks we should dismiss the 2016 referendum result?
Do you believe a vote to remain would have given politicians a mandate to enter the Euro, and anyone who voted leave should have been excluded from influence over the future role of the U.K. within the EU?
Do you believe that the implementation of the democratic mandate granted by the referendum should pay consideration to what people thought they were voting for, and especially what they definitely thought they were not voting for?
And whether you agree with it or not, do you think that if A further referendum was held and the outcome was to remain, would this mandate trump the original?
I know the old saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but with FPTP allowing a majority at 35%ish, it's not even that. It's one wolf eating two sheep.
My concern is that you end up with a highly disproportionate vote. So, say, the LibDems come in second with 29% of the vote, but have (irony or ironies) a good distribution, then they could end up with a majority. Or perhaps we have a party topping the polls, but third in number of seats.
A result like that, especially given how polarised our politics is, could poison our system. (Yes, even more than now.)
Yes, the biggest flaw in the system is that it gives far more of a premium to a party that appeals to geographically concentrated support and penalises any with broad appeal across the country. Hence the LibDems secure more than twice as many votes as the SNP but the latter has hugely more representation.
When a number of parties are close, this can be critical (as we saw in 1983)
I know the old saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but with FPTP allowing a majority at 35%ish, it's not even that. It's one wolf eating two sheep.
My concern is that you end up with a highly disproportionate vote. So, say, the LibDems come in second with 29% of the vote, but have (irony or ironies) a good distribution, then they could end up with a majority. Or perhaps we have a party topping the polls, but third in number of seats.
A result like that, especially given how polarised our politics is, could poison our system. (Yes, even more than now.)
At the end of the day British FPTP can see a party on 49% nationally with that 49% evenly spread and win zero seats. That same party on 51% of the vote wins every seat.
Whilst only a theoretical it is dumber than a bag of rocks that it can happen in a voting system.
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes. Does anyone know (Cyclefree herself would !) if she is published elsewhere - or is PB her only outlet ?
Thank you. I write a blog on my work website. But my articles on politics are only published on PB.
Oh it's about Politics - I thought PB had just turned into gardeners question time for the day.
Anyway, in all seriousness-
"Attacks on any sort of independent institution or attempts to delegitimise them or a refusal to defend them (the BBC, the EHRC; the judiciary)."
So if I don't defend the BBC I'm some sort of fascist? Or indeed ANY SORT OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUION
Honestly, what planet do you write from.
Dare I suggest you look at the specific examples I list. I don’t believe and have not said that not defending the BBC makes you a fascist. I do criticise the approach of politicians to independent institutions who are there to scrutinise them, because our rulers submitting themselves to scrutiny is essential to democracy.
But when the Lord Chancellor fails to defend the judiciary when they do their job despite being under a legal duty to do so, that is worrying. When a political party (Labour) tries to get a programme taken off air (the Panorama programme on anti-semitism) or suggests that the body charged with investigating it (the EHRC) be closed down, rather than deal with the substance of the issue, that suggests politicians resistant to scrutiny and willing to silence anyone asking awkward questions. That is worrying.
It worries me, anyway, even if it doesn’t worry you.
How independent are these independent institutions ?
The alphabet soup of state organisations need to show they deserve trust and respect yet many of them seem primarily concerned with protecting their own interests and covering up wrongdoing.
And that leads to a corrosive distrust of the system which can then be used by those fundamentally hostile to basic freedoms.
"Do you believe a vote to remain would have given politicians a mandate to enter the Euro?" No
"Do you believe that the implementation of the democratic mandate granted by the referendum should pay consideration to what people thought they were voting for, and especially what they definitely thought they were not voting for?"
Ah yes, the plebs didn't understand the question argument. They voted to leave the EU - I, like TMay and some others, believe we should leave the EU on the basis of the referendum
Mr. Stodge, show me the political party that scored 20% in a General Election and won 0 seats in the Commons.
You don’t need the extreme scenario to prove the system flawed. UKIP’s nil representation for a very significant vote in 2015 and the handful of seats the Liberals got in return for support of 20% of the voters in 1974 establish the case.
And you don’t need to be a mathematical genius to see that your scenario is entirely possible.
Has anyone actually managed to read a Cyclefree thread without skipping a paragraph or two.
This is just another rambling Remainiac rant as far as I can see.
Some people don't want to engage with the argument and just seek to dismiss anything that doesn't suit their agenda. Perhaps you could construct a reasoned counter-argument to what Cyclefree has said and we could discuss them both.
Fine.
Can you please translate the nonsense Burke quote for me first so I can get started given I only speak the lingua franca
In a world which gives you google for free, you should try doing some of your own work. You might even find the exercise educative.
To get you started, illation is an archaic synonym for conclusion. Are you someone who finds Shakespeare irritating because of the difficult words ?
Nigel, to be fair, shakespeare was a fanny. He could not even use English.
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes. Does anyone know (Cyclefree herself would !) if she is published elsewhere - or is PB her only outlet ?
Thank you. I write a blog on my work website. But my articles on politics are only published on PB.
Oh it's about Politics - I thought PB had just turned into gardeners question time for the day.
Anyway, in all seriousness-
"Attacks on any sort of independent institution or attempts to delegitimise them or a refusal to defend them (the BBC, the EHRC; the judiciary)."
So if I don't defend the BBC I'm some sort of fascist? Or indeed ANY SORT OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUION
Honestly, what planet do you write from.
More interestingly how could you defend the BBC. They are just a Government propaganda unit.
I know the old saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but with FPTP allowing a majority at 35%ish, it's not even that. It's one wolf eating two sheep.
My concern is that you end up with a highly disproportionate vote. So, say, the LibDems come in second with 29% of the vote, but have (irony or ironies) a good distribution, then they could end up with a majority. Or perhaps we have a party topping the polls, but third in number of seats.
A result like that, especially given how polarised our politics is, could poison our system. (Yes, even more than now.)
A good point.
I think you're right, a perverse result is genuinely possible, given how much better the Lib Dem ground operation is and how much better they are at concentrating their vote in winnable seats. BXP could out-poll them nationally yet come out with fewer seats on the night.
Of course it's a similar situation across the pond. Trump won the electoral college but lost on overall number of votes.
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes. Does anyone know (Cyclefree herself would !) if she is published elsewhere - or is PB her only outlet ?
Thank you. I write a blog on my work website. But my articles on politics are only published on PB.
Oh it's about Politics - I thought PB had just turned into gardeners question time for the day.
Anyway, in all seriousness-
"Attacks on any sort of independent institution or attempts to delegitimise them or a refusal to defend them (the BBC, the EHRC; the judiciary)."
So if I don't defend the BBC I'm some sort of fascist? Or indeed ANY SORT OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUION
Honestly, what planet do you write from.
More interestingly how could you defend the BBC. They are just a Government propaganda unit.
It's the regressive taxation I dislike the most. I think they're a fairly crappy broadcaster with crappy programmes - it's hardly a propaganda unit; they're all labourites
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes. Does anyone know (Cyclefree herself would !) if she is published elsewhere - or is PB her only outlet ?
Thank you. I write a blog on my work website. But my articles on politics are only published on PB.
Oh it's about Politics - I thought PB had just turned into gardeners question time for the day.
Anyway, in all seriousness-
"Attacks on any sort of independent institution or attempts to delegitimise them or a refusal to defend them (the BBC, the EHRC; the judiciary)."
So if I don't defend the BBC I'm some sort of fascist? Or indeed ANY SORT OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUION
Honestly, what planet do you write from.
Dare I suggest you look at the specific examples I list. I don’t believe and have not said that not defending the BBC makes you a fascist. I do criticise the approach of politicians to independent institutions who are there to scrutinise them, because our rulers submitting themselves to scrutiny is essential to democracy.
But when the Lord Chancellor fails to defend the judiciary when they do their job despite being under a legal duty to do so, that is worrying. When a political party (Labour) tries to get a programme taken off air (the Panorama programme on anti-semitism) or suggests that the body charged with investigating it (the EHRC) be closed down, rather than deal with the substance of the issue, that suggests politicians resistant to scrutiny and willing to silence anyone asking awkward questions. That is worrying.
It worries me, anyway, even if it doesn’t worry you.
Yes you've listed specific examples.
The BBC sticks out like a sore thumb. But it was you that said "Any sort of independent institution"
Your ideological stance and political training worries me. Where do you want power to lie exactly.
I take it you are, for example, someone who thinks we should dismiss the 2016 referendum result?
You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?
"Do you believe a vote to remain would have given politicians a mandate to enter the Euro?" No
"Do you believe that the implementation of the democratic mandate granted by the referendum should pay consideration to what people thought they were voting for, and especially what they definitely thought they were not voting for?"
Ah yes, the plebs didn't understand the question argument. They voted to leave the EU - I, like TMay and some others, believe we should leave the EU on the basis of the referendum
I notice you chose to only answer selectively from the questions posed. And no it’s not “the plebs didn’t understand the question” argument. It’s asking whether a mandate granted by the referendum should trump everything, even when the circumstances which generated that vote might have changed, or public opinion may have shifted. And whether people answering “no” to that question are genuinely acting out of a concern for the consequences for democracy or because of narrow political advantage. With many having rejected agreements, the result of which has already delayed departure because of their own personal interpretation of what the vote meant.
Has anyone actually managed to read a Cyclefree thread without skipping a paragraph or two.
This is just another rambling Remainiac rant as far as I can see.
Some people don't want to engage with the argument and just seek to dismiss anything that doesn't suit their agenda. Perhaps you could construct a reasoned counter-argument to what Cyclefree has said and we could discuss them both.
Fine.
Can you please translate the nonsense Burke quote for me first so I can get started given I only speak the lingua franca
In a world which gives you google for free, you should try doing some of your own work. You might even find the exercise educative.
To get you started, illation is an archaic synonym for conclusion. Are you someone who finds Shakespeare irritating because of the difficult words ?
Nigel, to be fair, shakespeare was a fanny. He could not even use English.
Jeez, malcolm, he even named a character after you.
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself.
Obviously power lies in many places. It's a complicated matter.
I'm just curious as to Cyclefree's particular stance given her pro-BBC, anti-weed stance.
Another great soundbite-
"An understanding that state and government are not the same."
Thanks for that, I'll make sure to write to my MP the next time the cops put me in cuffs.
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself...
"Do you believe a vote to remain would have given politicians a mandate to enter the Euro?" No
"Do you believe that the implementation of the democratic mandate granted by the referendum should pay consideration to what people thought they were voting for, and especially what they definitely thought they were not voting for?"
Ah yes, the plebs didn't understand the question argument. They voted to leave the EU - I, like TMay and some others, believe we should leave the EU on the basis of the referendum
I notice you chose to only answer selectively from the questions posed. And no it’s not “the plebs didn’t understand the question” argument. It’s asking whether a mandate granted by the referendum should trump everything, even when the circumstances which generated that vote might have changed, or public opinion may have shifted. And whether people answering “no” to that question are genuinely acting out of a concern for the consequences for democracy or because of narrow political advantage. With many having rejected agreements, the result of which has already delayed departure because of their own personal interpretation of what the vote meant.
"With many having rejected agreements, the result of which has already delayed departure because of their own personal interpretation of what the vote meant."
The withdrawal agreement's been rejected cus the labour party are a bunch of Remainiacs
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes. Does anyone know (Cyclefree herself would !) if she is published elsewhere - or is PB her only outlet ?
Thank you. I write a blog on my work website. But my articles on politics are only published on PB.
Oh it's about Politics - I thought PB had just turned into gardeners question time for the day.
Anyway, in all seriousness-
"Attacks on any sort of independent institution or attempts to delegitimise them or a refusal to defend them (the BBC, the EHRC; the judiciary)."
So if I don't defend the BBC I'm some sort of fascist? Or indeed ANY SORT OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUION
Honestly, what planet do you write from.
More interestingly how could you defend the BBC. They are just a Government propaganda unit.
It's the regressive taxation I dislike the most. I think they're a fairly crappy broadcaster with crappy programmes - it's hardly a propaganda unit; they're all labourites
We agree totally on something, will improve when we have independence and we have a real Scottish broadcaster
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself...
Entitled, much ?
Entitled?
I'm lumpen
If Cyclefree can write such long paragraphs I'm sure she can answer the simple question of whether she respects the 2016 referendum result.
Has anyone actually managed to read a Cyclefree thread without skipping a paragraph or two.
This is just another rambling Remainiac rant as far as I can see.
Some people don't want to engage with the argument and just seek to dismiss anything that doesn't suit their agenda. Perhaps you could construct a reasoned counter-argument to what Cyclefree has said and we could discuss them both.
Fine.
Can you please translate the nonsense Burke quote for me first so I can get started given I only speak the lingua franca
In a world which gives you google for free, you should try doing some of your own work. You might even find the exercise educative.
To get you started, illation is an archaic synonym for conclusion. Are you someone who finds Shakespeare irritating because of the difficult words ?
Nigel, to be fair, shakespeare was a fanny. He could not even use English.
Jeez, malcolm, he even named a character after you.
Has anyone actually managed to read a Cyclefree thread without skipping a paragraph or two.
This is just another rambling Remainiac rant as far as I can see.
Cyclefree is one of the most lucid, rational, liberal and tolerant posters on here. About as far away from a "rambling remainiac" as it gets.
Great post, Cyclefree. As always.
The problem with our democracy is that FPTP grants too much power to a minority. You only need to secure 35% or so of the vote to impact 100% of the country.
In an era when people no longer compromise nor take the country as a whole into account, I fear the long term damage to country, economy and democracy a narrow, ideologically obsessive Brexit Party or Labour Party government could do.
The problem is that the European questions are either/or questions. Either we are part of the single market with free movement of people, or we aren’t. Either we are in the customs union, or we aren’t.
Yes if you break it down to that level of granularity, but the question asked was "membership of the EU" YES/NO. We could have left the EU but retained a lot of the relationship and thus limited the damage.
If the answer to every question of our relationship with the EU is no, then we are condemning ourselves to economic and political weakness. Even Dan Hannam said he wanted to retain membership of the single market.
Since the debate has been framed in this way, since the referendum, there has been a backlash- the No dealers say no to anything and every compromise has been trashed.
The result is that the Pro_EU camp is digging in as a reaction. The battle may well be re-run and this time the uncompromising leavers will be defeated.
And that was the central failing of May and her government. She did her best and it wasn’t good enough.
But the answer is not to revoke. And given the way that Remainers are approaching things a “pause” will be seen as a staging post on the way to revocation
Unfortunately we have no choice car but to continue forward
I wish those f*****ng idiots in parliament would pass the WA.
So has the UK taken the eye off the ball ref the captured tanker? Who is Duncan Smith attacking when he says there are questions to be raised about the British governments behaviour? is he honest and right on this? Or does it tie in with offering Hunt or mordaunt a demotion?
Betting tip everybody, I have a suspicion who Boris is going to appoint as his representative for zoo’s.
Zoo’s what?
HY deserves to be rewarded with some role in the new administration, he’s been spinning like a top in in the PB spin room 25 hours a day for what seems months.
So has the UK taken the eye off the ball ref the captured tanker? Who is Duncan Smith attacking when he says there are questions to be raised about the British governments behaviour? is he honest and right on this? Or does it tie in with offering Hunt or mordaunt a demotion?
It is concerning how many potential members of the next cabinet seem to believe that they have a role as acting as US Govt spokespeople in the U.K. Not that this is a new role for IDS after the sterling work he did in maintaining the Govt’s resolve in the run up to the Iraq war.
My thoughts precisely. I like FPTP because you can change the government. If that means a very pro-EU Lib Dem government, I’ll accept it, even if I might not like it.
This is one of those fallacies put about by proponents of FPTP. It doesn't stop "radical" Governments if the radical message is genuinely popular. Nor does it prevent changes of Government.
My guess is as we have seen elsewhere there would be a centre-right grouping of parties and a centre-left grouping of parties, perhaps one or two moving between the two blocs and parties sitting wholly outside the blocs. That's called plural democracy and it's no bad thing.
Each party would be an ideologically tighter and more distinct grouping as the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voting coalitions separated into more clearly defined groups.
I think you have misunderstood. I think they were saying the ability to elect a radical government, as well as being able to change the government, was a good thing
Who wants a radical government supported by barely a third of voters and a quarter of adults? The path to madness.
I assume any referendum on changing the voting system will require 50% of all adults to agree?
I hope that the system will be changed without a referendum. If PR is in the manifesto of the winning party/parties then for god's sake just get on and introduce it.
Agreed.
I don't want another referendum on anything, ever.
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself.
Obviously power lies in many places. It's a complicated matter.
I'm just curious as to Cyclefree's particular stance given her pro-BBC, anti-weed stance.
Another great soundbite-
"An understanding that state and government are not the same."
Thanks for that, I'll make sure to write to my MP the next time the cops put me in cuffs.
I expect @Cyclefree takes the same view that I do, that a thread header should stand for itself and below thread you should let other people have their say.
Betting tip everybody, I have a suspicion who Boris is going to appoint as his representative for zoo’s.
Zoo’s what?
HY deserves to be rewarded with some role in the new administration, he’s been spinning like a top in in the PB spin room 25 hours a day for what seems months.
Betting tip everybody, I have a suspicion who Boris is going to appoint as his representative for zoo’s.
Zoo’s what?
HY deserves to be rewarded with some role in the new administration, he’s been spinning like a top in in the PB spin room 25 hours a day for what seems months.
Betting tip everybody, I have a suspicion who Boris is going to appoint as his representative for zoo’s.
Zoo’s what?
HY deserves to be rewarded with some role in the new administration, he’s been spinning like a top in in the PB spin room 25 hours a day for what seems months.
Betting tip everybody, I have a suspicion who Boris is going to appoint as his representative for zoo’s.
Zoo’s what?
HY deserves to be rewarded with some role in the new administration, he’s been spinning like a top in in the PB spin room 25 hours a day for what seems months.
Mr. That, ah. Perhaps, but Blair won a comfortable majority in 2005 with... 35% of the vote, was it?
The Lib Dems and others have bleated for a long time that the voting system is mean to them and it'd be right and just to change the system to their advantage, but with all the recent political turbulence this sort of thing will not be on the agenda, potentially excepting a referendum as part of a coalition deal.
I don't believe a party polling 10% or 20% of the votes should be shut out of the Commons because of the geographical distribution of that vote nor that my vote in East Ham should be valueless because I live in a seat with a big Labour majority. My vote is counted but it doesn't count because the GE is 650 separate local contests not a "general" election.
This notion of constituencies and "knowing your MP" belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. Votes should count equally wherever they are cast and the legislature should reflect the proportionality of votes cast not the geographical accident of where they are cast.
STV in multi-member constituencies is a good compromise.
So has the UK taken the eye off the ball ref the captured tanker? Who is Duncan Smith attacking when he says there are questions to be raised about the British governments behaviour? is he honest and right on this? Or does it tie in with offering Hunt or mordaunt a demotion?
It is concerning how many potential members of the next cabinet seem to believe that they have a role as acting as US Govt spokespeople in the U.K. Not that this is a new role for IDS after the sterling work he did in maintaining the Govt’s resolve in the run up to the Iraq war.
They have been shit up till now and will not change next week. They will just shuffle the donkeys.
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself...
Entitled, much ?
Entitled?
I'm lumpen
If Cyclefree can write such long paragraphs I'm sure she can answer the simple question of whether she respects the 2016 referendum result.
I respected it myself for a year or two. But when you look at the consequences, it isn’t difficult to conclude that it has had more than enough respect already.
It could be argued that asserting that the referendum result can only be overturned by another referendum is “respecting the result of the referendum”. Effectively recognising that it cannot be reversed except by a demonstration that the original democratic mandate has evaporated. And those who argue for straight “revoke” would remain vulnerable to a future zBrexit majority in the House of Commons acting unilaterally, and legitimately.
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself...
Entitled, much ?
Entitled?
I'm lumpen
If Cyclefree can write such long paragraphs I'm sure she can answer the simple question of whether she respects the 2016 referendum result.
I’ve no problem with your being a newcomer. The expectation that everyone dance to your tune is another matter.
Though it does illustrate your incomprehension of what makes a civil society.
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself...
Entitled, much ?
Entitled?
I'm lumpen
If Cyclefree can write such long paragraphs I'm sure she can answer the simple question of whether she respects the 2016 referendum result.
I’ve no problem with your being a newcomer. The expectation that everyone dance to your tune is another matter.
Though it does illustrate your incomprehension of what makes a civil society.
Nigel , he is a reincarnation , the brisket of old.
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself...
Entitled, much ?
Entitled?
I'm lumpen
If Cyclefree can write such long paragraphs I'm sure she can answer the simple question of whether she respects the 2016 referendum result.
I’ve no problem with your being a newcomer. The expectation that everyone dance to your tune is another matter.
Though it does illustrate your incomprehension of what makes a civil society.
Betting tip everybody, I have a suspicion who Boris is going to appoint as his representative for zoo’s.
Zoo’s what?
HY deserves to be rewarded with some role in the new administration, he’s been spinning like a top in in the PB spin room 25 hours a day for what seems months.
What do we think he should get?
Guardian (deputy) of the PM’s hairspray.
I should think HY would greedily grasp such an opportunity, it would be like a seraphim guarding Gods beard with an extra pair of wings.
Just wondering who will be the favourite for next Conservative leader when they close the book on the current contest. Phil Hammond must be worth a punt at the right price.
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself...
Entitled, much ?
Entitled?
I'm lumpen
If Cyclefree can write such long paragraphs I'm sure she can answer the simple question of whether she respects the 2016 referendum result.
I’ve no problem with your being a newcomer. The expectation that everyone dance to your tune is another matter.
Though it does illustrate your incomprehension of what makes a civil society.
Betting tip everybody, I have a suspicion who Boris is going to appoint as his representative for zoo’s.
Zoo’s what?
HY deserves to be rewarded with some role in the new administration, he’s been spinning like a top in in the PB spin room 25 hours a day for what seems months.
What do we think he should get?
Guardian (deputy) of the PM’s hairspray.
I should think HY would greedily grasp such an opportunity, it would be like a seraphim guarding Gods beard with an extra pair of wings.
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself...
Entitled, much ?
Entitled?
I'm lumpen
If Cyclefree can write such long paragraphs I'm sure she can answer the simple question of whether she respects the 2016 referendum result.
I’ve no problem with your being a newcomer. The expectation that everyone dance to your tune is another matter.
Though it does illustrate your incomprehension of what makes a civil society.
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes. Does anyone know (Cyclefree herself would !) if she is published elsewhere - or is PB her only outlet ?
Thank you. I write a blog on my work website. But my articles on politics are only published on PB.
Oh it's about Politics - I thought PB had just turned into gardeners question time for the day.
Anyway, in all seriousness-
"Attacks on any sort of independent institution or attempts to delegitimise them or a refusal to defend them (the BBC, the EHRC; the judiciary)."
So if I don't defend the BBC I'm some sort of fascist? Or indeed ANY SORT OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUION
Honestly, what planet do you write from.
Dare I suggest you look at the specific examples I list. I don’t believe and have not said that not defending the BBC makes you a fascist. I do criticise the approach of politicians to independent institutions who are there to scrutinise them, because our rulers submitting themselves to scrutiny is essential to democracy.
But when the Lord Chancellor fails to defend the judiciary when they do their job despite being under a legal duty to do so, that is worrying. When a political party (Labour) tries to get a programme taken off air (the Panorama programme on anti-semitism) or suggests that the body charged with investigating it (the EHRC) be closed down, rather than deal with the substance of the issue, that suggests politicians resistant to scrutiny and willing to silence anyone asking awkward questions. That is worrying.
It worries me, anyway, even if it doesn’t worry you.
It worries me that there are some in the media who believe that their interests are paramount over government and the law, and are unwilling to be questioned or to accept any form of criticism made against them. That Murdoch's News Corp, Reach and others have (un)willingly and continue to pay out tens of millions over the phone hacking scandal to avoid cases going to court and open trial while yet a few are in sanctimonious piety only because of rumoured serious internal campaigns to destroy all evidence.
I think you will find that the BBC will not be mentioning that Panorama programme so often now that the wheels are coming off. I gather that most of the "cast" were not as "innocent" as they tried to make out. I look forward to this week's Private Eye to see if they have caught on to the story.
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes.
Dare I suggest you look at the specific examples I list. I don’t believe and have not said that not defending the BBC makes you a fascist. I do criticise the approach of politicians to independent institutions who are there to scrutinise them, because our rulers submitting themselves to scrutiny is essential to democracy.
But when the Lord Chancellor fails to defend the judiciary when they do their job despite being under a legal duty to do so, that is worrying. When a political party (Labour) tries to get a programme taken off air (the Panorama programme on anti-semitism) or suggests that the body charged with investigating it (the EHRC) be closed down, rather than deal with the substance of the issue, that suggests politicians resistant to scrutiny and willing to silence anyone asking awkward questions. That is worrying.
It worries me, anyway, even if it doesn’t worry you.
Yes you've listed specific examples.
The BBC sticks out like a sore thumb. But it was you that said "Any sort of independent institution"
Your ideological stance and political training worries me. Where do you want power to lie exactly.
I take it you are, for example, someone who thinks we should dismiss the 2016 referendum result?
I’m not quite sure why you’ve got it in for me. But to answer your questions:-
1. The reason I’ve not “defended” myself is because I’ve been in the garden not on here. 2. I have no strong feelings, one way or the other, about the BBC. I do feel very strongly about political parties trying to stop people learning about matters of public interest. My point was not dependant on it being the BBC which was being attacked. 3. I am not anti-weed. I am not as convinced as others that legalisation is a good idea but happy to see the arguments for and against from experts. 4. I have not had any sort of “political training”, whatever that means. 5. I don’t think the result of the referendum should be ignored. I do think that there is no mandate for a No Deal exit which is not any sort of end state merely a stage on the way to some sort of a deal.
This is my 65th header on this site in the last 3 and a bit years (gulp!) so my political views are out there for all to see. I try and think for myself and my views have changed over time and, indeed, over the last few years, in part because of events, my writing (which forces me to think about what I am saying) and other peoples’ comments.
Anyway, why don’t you try writing a header if you feel you have something to say.
Betting tip everybody, I have a suspicion who Boris is going to appoint as his representative for zoo’s.
Zoo’s what?
HY deserves to be rewarded with some role in the new administration, he’s been spinning like a top in in the PB spin room 25 hours a day for what seems months.
What do we think he should get?
Guardian (deputy) of the PM’s hairspray.
I should think HY would greedily grasp such an opportunity, it would be like a seraphim guarding Gods beard with an extra pair of wings.
Clearly the hot take will be Harris surging to 16%.
Rather that she possibly has more to win, and more to lose than any other candidate in the debates at the end of this month. The three in front of her are more established in voters’ minds, Biden and Sanders far more so. She could have a further surge, justifying her current betting odds, or be back in the chasing pack with Buttigieg.
An important dynamic with this race is that, for the September debates, the "entrance requirements" have doubled.
The consequence of which is that only five candidates have definitely qualified for them (Biden, Harris, Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg), and then there are two or three with a chance (O'Rourke, Kloubacher, Castro).
We could go from two debates with twenty candidates, to one debate with five or six.
I also suspect that those who do not qualify for the September debate, are effectively out the race.
Cyclefree's headers always make me think. I don't have to agree with what she says to appreciate the quality of what and how she writes.
Dare I suggest you look at the specific examples I list. I don’t believe and have not said that not defending the BBC makes you a fascist. I do criticise the approach of politicians to independent institutions who are there to scrutinise them, because our rulers submitting themselves to scrutiny is essential to democracy.
It worries me, anyway, even if it doesn’t worry you.
Yes you've listed specific examples.
The BBC sticks out like a sore thumb. But it was you that said "Any sort of independent institution"
You
I’m not quite sure why you’ve got it in for me. But to answer your questions:-
1. The reason I’ve not “defended” myself is because I’ve been in the garden not on here. 2. I have no strong feelings, one way or the other, about the BBC. I do feel very strongly about political parties trying to stop people learning about matters of public interest. My point was not dependant on it being the BBC which was being attacked. 3. I am not anti-weed. I am not as convinced as others that legalisation is a good idea but happy to see the arguments for and against from experts. 4. I have not had any sort of “political training”, whatever that means. 5. I don’t think the result of the referendum should be ignored. I do think that there is no mandate for a No Deal exit which is not any sort of end state merely a stage on the way to some sort of a deal.
This is my 65th header on this site in the last 3 and a bit years (gulp!) so my political views are out there for all to see. I try and think for myself and my views have changed over time and, indeed, over the last few years, in part because of events, my writing (which forces me to think about what I am saying) and other peoples’ comments.
Anyway, why don’t you try writing a header if you feel you have something to say.
BBC are dire, time they were forced to stand on their own two feet, methinks they will struggle big time given the dross they put out for the amount they are able to steal off everyone each year. We would be well shot of them.
A bad idea. Firstly I think many voters will rebel against the idea that they have to vote on a single issue in a General Election, when they may have significant issues with nominated parties on other issues. And secondly, when the Election results are in and a Government needs to be formed, any such government formed largely on the backs of these single issue candidates would have little serious democratic mandate to do anything.
Leave it to the voters to decide how they want to cast their votes, and decide for themselves if they want to coalesce tactically on single issues.
Betting tip everybody, I have a suspicion who Boris is going to appoint as his representative for zoo’s.
Zoo’s what?
HY deserves to be rewarded with some role in the new administration, he’s been spinning like a top in in the PB spin room 25 hours a day for what seems months.
Betting tip everybody, I have a suspicion who Boris is going to appoint as his representative for zoo’s.
Zoo’s what?
HY deserves to be rewarded with some role in the new administration, he’s been spinning like a top in in the PB spin room 25 hours a day for what seems months.
Betting tip everybody, I have a suspicion who Boris is going to appoint as his representative for zoo’s.
Zoo’s what?
HY deserves to be rewarded with some role in the new administration, he’s been spinning like a top in in the PB spin room 25 hours a day for what seems months.
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself.
Obviously power lies in many places. It's a complicated matter.
I'm just curious as to Cyclefree's particular stance given her pro-BBC, anti-weed stance.
Another great soundbite-
"An understanding that state and government are not the same."
Thanks for that, I'll make sure to write to my MP the next time the cops put me in cuffs.
I expect @Cyclefree takes the same view that I do, that a thread header should stand for itself and below thread you should let other people have their say.
Well, that too. But mainly that my beloved garden takes priority, even over PB.
I think you will find that the BBC will not be mentioning that Panorama programme so often now that the wheels are coming off. I gather that most of the "cast" were not as "innocent" as they tried to make out. I look forward to this week's Private Eye to see if they have caught on to the story.
The last thing I learnt Panorama wise was just how much bbc journos could put away...
"You take that wrong, as Cyclefree has made clear on many an occasion.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed. Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself.
Obviously power lies in many places. It's a complicated matter.
I'm just curious as to Cyclefree's particular stance given her pro-BBC, anti-weed stance.
Another great soundbite-
"An understanding that state and government are not the same."
Thanks for that, I'll make sure to write to my MP the next time the cops put me in cuffs.
I expect @Cyclefree takes the same view that I do, that a thread header should stand for itself and below thread you should let other people have their say.
Well, that too. But mainly that my beloved garden takes priority, even over PB.
Candidly, you do well to cultivate your garden. Remember it's in the best of all possible worlds.
Comments
“One of Mr Johnson’s most vainglorious boasts has been to tell Tories that he can “unite the party and then the country”. A feature of his premiership, as of hers, will be Number 10 pleading with Tory MPs to fall into line. These exhortations will have scant traction with the significant number who feel they owe no loyalty to a man who displayed none to either of his predecessors as prime minister.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/21/when-campaign-poses-clash-with-reallity-boris-johnson-will-be-short-of-friends
The Lib Dems and others have bleated for a long time that the voting system is mean to them and it'd be right and just to change the system to their advantage, but with all the recent political turbulence this sort of thing will not be on the agenda, potentially excepting a referendum as part of a coalition deal.
Once we're out we're out, and the EU will like as not want us back, even if Brexit proves to be an unmitigated disaster. And why would they, when the quirks of our electoral system mean that one party could drag us out of the EU even when the majority are against it?
So long as Brexit remains the issue of the day I'm not comfortable with FPTP deciding how or whether it happens. A majority rather than a plurality should decide where we go from here.
You can extend it further that Brexit and Trump are consequences of the failings of the state organisations to operate equally on behalf of the 'little people' and to regulate themselves properly.
Why shouldn't such state organisations be then criticised - respect and trust has to be earned and should never be taken as a given.
In a world in which we insist that referendums override parliamentary democracy, it is even more important that any government implementing such decisions represent more than one set of interests.
PR has become not just an issue of fairness to the unrepresented minorities, but to the probable disempowered majorities.
Are the Contents of International Treaties Copied and Pasted? Evidence from Preferential Trade Agreements
https://academic.oup.com/isq/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isq/sqz029/5531760
Abstract
Most accounts of international negotiations suggest that global agreements are individually crafted and distinct, while some emerging scholarship suggests a heavy reliance on models and templates. In this research, we present a comprehensive test of whether new international treaties are heavily copied and pasted from past ones. We specify several reasons to expect widespread copying and pasting, and argue that both the most and least powerful countries should be most likely to do so. Using text analysis to examine several hundred preferential trade agreements (PTAs), we reveal that most PTAs copy a sizable majority of their content word for word from an earlier agreement. At least one hundred PTAs take 80 percent or more of their contents directly from a single, existing treaty—with many copying and pasting 95 percent or more. These numbers climb even higher when we compare important substantive chapters of trade agreements, many of which are copied and pasted verbatim. Such copying and pasting is most prevalent among low-capacity governments that lean heavily on existing templates, and powerful states that desire to spread their preferred rules globally. This widespread replication of existing treaty language reshapes how we think about international cooperation, and it has important implications for literatures on institutional design, policy diffusion, state power, and legal fragmentation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/21/moderates-dead-species-donald-trumps-attack-ilhan-omar-sets/
Good evening, everyone.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/454047-identity-politics-will-trump-race-baiting-in-2020
This notion of constituencies and "knowing your MP" belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. Votes should count equally wherever they are cast and the legislature should reflect the proportionality of votes cast not the geographical accident of where they are cast.
Anyway, in all seriousness-
"Attacks on any sort of independent institution or attempts to delegitimise them or a refusal to defend them (the BBC, the EHRC; the judiciary)."
So if I don't defend the BBC I'm some sort of fascist? Or indeed ANY SORT OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUION
Honestly, what planet do you write from.
Good afternoon PB.
The only difference is you'd have three or four parties in each bloc instead of one as now. You'd have a party or two moving between the blocs (analogous to the FDP in Germany perhaps?) and parties sitting outside the main blocs.
Those expecting a change in the voting system to produce a revolution in the political system are going to be disappointed, those expecting an evolution aren't.
Winning a referendum isn't a substitute for making politics work for most people.
The Dems need sound bites of Rep Senators defending him. Trump's base is secure no matter what. It is low info swing voters the Dems need to get and daily impeachment hearings will get the News Networks doing their job for them.
2016 was about Dem base not turning out. Failing to impeach Trump does not energise the Dem base.
The three in front of her are more established in voters’ minds, Biden and Sanders far more so. She could have a further surge, justifying her current betting odds, or be back in the chasing pack with Buttigieg.
Arbitrage oppertunity (if you can stomach the currency risk)
But when the Lord Chancellor fails to defend the judiciary when they do their job despite being under a legal duty to do so, that is worrying. When a political party (Labour) tries to get a programme taken off air (the Panorama programme on anti-semitism) or suggests that the body charged with investigating it (the EHRC) be closed down, rather than deal with the substance of the issue, that suggests politicians resistant to scrutiny and willing to silence anyone asking awkward questions. That is worrying.
It worries me, anyway, even if it doesn’t worry you.
The BBC sticks out like a sore thumb. But it was you that said "Any sort of independent institution"
Your ideological stance and political training worries me. Where do you want power to lie exactly.
I take it you are, for example, someone who thinks we should dismiss the 2016 referendum result?
A result like that, especially given how polarised our politics is, could poison our system. (Yes, even more than now.)
Do you believe that the implementation of the democratic mandate granted by the referendum should pay consideration to what people thought they were voting for, and especially what they definitely thought they were not voting for?
And whether you agree with it or not, do you think that if A further referendum was held and the outcome was to remain, would this mandate trump the original?
When a number of parties are close, this can be critical (as we saw in 1983)
Whilst only a theoretical it is dumber than a bag of rocks that it can happen in a voting system.
The alphabet soup of state organisations need to show they deserve trust and respect yet many of them seem primarily concerned with protecting their own interests and covering up wrongdoing.
And that leads to a corrosive distrust of the system which can then be used by those fundamentally hostile to basic freedoms.
"Do you believe a vote to remain would have given politicians a mandate to enter the Euro?" No
"Do you believe that the implementation of the democratic mandate granted by the referendum should pay consideration to what people thought they were voting for, and especially what they definitely thought they were not voting for?"
Ah yes, the plebs didn't understand the question argument. They voted to leave the EU - I, like TMay and some others, believe we should leave the EU on the basis of the referendum
And you don’t need to be a mathematical genius to see that your scenario is entirely possible.
Given that unlike the Alliance the TBP lack incumbency I'd have thought it not out of the question they might poll 20% without return.
I think you're right, a perverse result is genuinely possible, given how much better the Lib Dem ground operation is and how much better they are at concentrating their vote in winnable seats. BXP could out-poll them nationally yet come out with fewer seats on the night.
Of course it's a similar situation across the pond. Trump won the electoral college but lost on overall number of votes.
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed.
Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?
A reasonable reading of the argument would make it pretty clear that in a democracy power doesn’t lie any particular where; it is distributed.
Or do you have a problem with pluralism, too ?"
Yes well I notice she can't be bothered to defend herself.
Obviously power lies in many places. It's a complicated matter.
I'm just curious as to Cyclefree's particular stance given her pro-BBC, anti-weed stance.
Another great soundbite-
"An understanding that state and government are not the same."
Thanks for that, I'll make sure to write to my MP the next time the cops put me in cuffs.
The withdrawal agreement's been rejected cus the labour party are a bunch of Remainiacs
I'm lumpen
If Cyclefree can write such long paragraphs I'm sure she can answer the simple question of whether she respects the 2016 referendum result.
But the answer is not to revoke. And given the way that Remainers are approaching things a “pause” will be seen as a staging post on the way to revocation
Unfortunately we have no choice car but to continue forward
I wish those f*****ng idiots in parliament would pass the WA.
What do we think he should get?
I don't want another referendum on anything, ever.
Sorry, HY, I realise that's cheap.
The expectation that everyone dance to your tune is another matter.
Though it does illustrate your incomprehension of what makes a civil society.
laters all
https://news.sky.com/story/remain-alliance-could-be-kingmakers-with-up-to-154-seats-up-for-grabs-11767610
I think you will find that the BBC will not be mentioning that Panorama programme so often now that the wheels are coming off. I gather that most of the "cast" were not as "innocent" as they tried to make out. I look forward to this week's Private Eye to see if they have caught on to the story.
1. The reason I’ve not “defended” myself is because I’ve been in the garden not on here.
2. I have no strong feelings, one way or the other, about the BBC. I do feel very strongly about political parties trying to stop people learning about matters of public interest. My point was not dependant on it being the BBC which was being attacked.
3. I am not anti-weed. I am not as convinced as others that legalisation is a good idea but happy to see the arguments for and against from experts.
4. I have not had any sort of “political training”, whatever that means.
5. I don’t think the result of the referendum should be ignored. I do think that there is no mandate for a No Deal exit which is not any sort of end state merely a stage on the way to some sort of a deal.
This is my 65th header on this site in the last 3 and a bit years (gulp!) so my political views are out there for all to see. I try and think for myself and my views have changed over time and, indeed, over the last few years, in part because of events, my writing (which forces me to think about what I am saying) and other peoples’ comments.
Anyway, why don’t you try writing a header if you feel you have something to say.
The consequence of which is that only five candidates have definitely qualified for them (Biden, Harris, Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg), and then there are two or three with a chance (O'Rourke, Kloubacher, Castro).
We could go from two debates with twenty candidates, to one debate with five or six.
I also suspect that those who do not qualify for the September debate, are effectively out the race.
Leave it to the voters to decide how they want to cast their votes, and decide for themselves if they want to coalesce tactically on single issues.
Comes with interesting coat of arms.