Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.
Racism doesn't bode well for anyone, no matter how it's "funnelled."
Who said anything about racism? We were talking about competition.
You'd better check the post you were responding to. You must not have read it.
I don't see race or racism mentioned. Nations, nationalism and competition are mentioned, but race isn't mentioned anywhere and wasn't in the entire conversation we were having.
You need to check the legal definition of discrimination based on race.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.
Racism doesn't bode well for anyone, no matter how it's "funnelled."
Who said anything about racism? We were talking about competition.
You'd better check the post you were responding to. You must not have read it.
I don't see race or racism mentioned. Nations, nationalism and competition are mentioned, but race isn't mentioned anywhere and wasn't in the entire conversation we were having.
You need to check the legal definition of discrimination based on race.
Legal bid to stop Westminster shutdown goes to court
A group of MPs and peers wants the Court of Session in Edinburgh to rule that suspending parliament to make the UK leave the EU without a deal is "unlawful and unconstitutional".
Cross-party backing More than 70 politicians have put their names behind the move, including Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson and SNP MP Joanna Cherry.
The case is beginning in the Scottish courts because they sit through the summer, unlike their English counterparts.
The Commons Speaker John Bercow has said the idea of the parliamentary session ending in order to force through a no-deal Brexit is "simply not going to happen" and that that was "so blindingly obvious it almost doesn't need to be stated".
One of the petitioners, Edinburgh South Labour MP Ian Murray, said: "When Boris Johnson unveiled his vacuous slogan 'taking back control', voters weren't told that this could mean shutting down parliament. The prime minister's undemocratic proposal to hold Westminster in contempt simply can't go unchallenged."
Different peoples will choose differing levels of regulation and taxation.
But this does not mean the net impact is positive. If it leads to a world in which those things are diverging rather than converging, then quite the opposite.
I disagree 100%. Divergence allows for innovation. And, I see nothing wrong with allowing peoples to opt for differing levels of regulation, spending, and taxation. One group of people may opt for lower levels of tax and spend, another for higher levels. Each choice is a legitimate one.
» show previous quotes £23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.
Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.
All the locals look down on Makers Mark and wouldn't be seen dead with it; Woodford Reserve is their preferred bourbon.
I'm intrigued. Do you drink it straight, with water, or (possibly a terrible suggestion) with a mixer? Never tried Bourbon - just malt with a dash of water.
I take it with some ice, it is as smooth as a malt. If you were buying the cheap stuff you may need a mixer.
Ta, thanks. Just £23 on Amazon so may give it a go.
The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.
You approve (I assume) of a level playing field within a country.
But do not approve of a level playing field across countries.
How do you reconcile?
Different peoples will choose differing levels of regulation and taxation.
Like those in London and those in Nuneaton?
To a limited extent they do, throgh local government, and through devolution. There's no reason why evey local council should set council tax at exactly the saem level.
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.
Racism doesn't bode well for anyone, no matter how it's "funnelled."
Who said anything about racism? We were talking about competition.
You'd better check the post you were responding to. You must not have read it.
I don't see race or racism mentioned. Nations, nationalism and competition are mentioned, but race isn't mentioned anywhere and wasn't in the entire conversation we were having.
You need to check the legal definition of discrimination based on race.
We weren't talking about discrimination either.
The point you were responding to related to the "misery and injustice" that could be caused when "nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others".
So discrimination - if you know what that means - was exactly what was under discussion.
Leaving the EU is about increasing the linkage between our rulers and our rules. It should mean greater accountability.
But we need to be honest too: in FTAs our sovereignty will be constrained; and we will still continue to bound by much of the product regulation that we had in the EU.
It is illogical to suggest that it will “increase accountability” it the rules will continue to be set elsewhere. Indeed, since we will no longer help set those rules, it will reduce accountability.
We will not be able to vote to change those rules, whereas before - even if tenuously - we were able to.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Cynical nonsense. In my first GE in 1983 my choice was supported by nearly a quarter of voters yet the representation we received was derisory. The EU is more democratic than the UK.
Different peoples will choose differing levels of regulation and taxation.
But this does not mean the net impact is positive. If it leads to a world in which those things are diverging rather than converging, then quite the opposite.
I disagree 100%. Divergence allows for innovation. And, I see nothing wrong with allowing peoples to opt for differing levels of regulation, spending, and taxation. One group of people may opt for lower levels of tax and spend, another for higher levels. Each choice is a legitimate one.
Exactly.
Without divergence we have stagnation. Divergence is a good thing in itself - some divergences would be good or bad, but overall having divergence leads to innovation.
Its ironic that people who would be horrified if we said everyone should look the same, seem to think its OK to say every country should look the same.
What you're saying kinabalu is basically that diversity is bad. I disagree.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Cynical nonsense. In my first GE in 1983 my choice was supported by nearly a quarter of voters yet the representation we received was derisory. The EU is more democratic than the UK.
Nearly a quarter of voters wasn't enough. Had you convinced more of the other three quarters of voters then you'd have got more seats.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Cynical nonsense. In my first GE in 1983 my choice was supported by nearly a quarter of voters yet the representation we received was derisory. The EU is more democratic than the UK.
It's quite possible for one's vote to count for very little even under PR. For example, millions of Italians voted for the Communist Party, but the party was still rigorously excluded from government.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Those of us who support a more proportional electoral system argue that for too many people in too many constituencies their vote is counted but it doesn't count.
I fail to see why 20% of the vote shouldn't equate to 20% of the seats in the Commons and why a majority can be formed on 36% of the vote (or even 31% according to some). Supporters of FPTP witter on about the strength and stability of majority Governments - Heath had a majority, so did Brown, so did Major - it didn't end well for any of them.
Thatcher had a three figure majority and was overturned by her own MPs.
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.
Racism doesn't bode well for anyone, no matter how it's "funnelled."
Who said anything about racism? We were talking about competition.
You'd better check the post you were responding to. You must not have read it.
I don't see race or racism mentioned. Nations, nationalism and competition are mentioned, but race isn't mentioned anywhere and wasn't in the entire conversation we were having.
You need to check the legal definition of discrimination based on race.
We weren't talking about discrimination either.
The point you were responding to related to the "misery and injustice" that could be caused when "nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others".
So discrimination - if you know what that means - was exactly what was under discussion.
No, for one I disagreed with it causing misery and injustice. For another if the UK wants to demonstrate its superiority by working on developing new technologies then I am very pleased, not upset, with that.
It is you Mr Glass Half Empty who is turning it into something it is not. None of this is about racism.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Cynical nonsense. In my first GE in 1983 my choice was supported by nearly a quarter of voters yet the representation we received was derisory. The EU is more democratic than the UK.
Nearly a quarter of voters wasn't enough. Had you convinced more of the other three quarters of voters then you'd have got more seats.
For some parties it would be more than enough. Look at the seats Labour received tha5 year for a handful more votes. Our democracy is crooked and broken, and maintained only because so many of our MPs enjoy jobs for life in safe seats where they have to make minimal effort to achieve perpetual re-election. It isn’t a coincidence that most of the worst expenses fraud cases were from MPs sitting in safe seats.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Those of us who support a more proportional electoral system argue that for too many people in too many constituencies their vote is counted but it doesn't count.
I fail to see why 20% of the vote shouldn't equate to 20% of the seats in the Commons and why a majority can be formed on 36% of the vote (or even 31% according to some). Supporters of FPTP witter on about the strength and stability of majority Governments - Heath had a majority, so did Brown, so did Major - it didn't end well for any of them.
Thatcher had a three figure majority and was overturned by her own MPs.
The fact that things can turn is a positive of FPTP not a weakness.
PR tends to lead to sterility where the same old partnerships for year after year to create coalitions after the voters voted, rather than our more cut-throat option of coming up with packages and letting the voters decide.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Cynical nonsense. In my first GE in 1983 my choice was supported by nearly a quarter of voters yet the representation we received was derisory. The EU is more democratic than the UK.
Sorry but the idea that something so remote as the EU is "more democratic" than the UK is ridiculous. Don't think you would find many Greeks siging up to that assertion. The EU is simply too large, diverse, etc, to be a credible democratic entity. That, in a nutshell, is why the integration project cannot work in the long term.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Cynical nonsense. In my first GE in 1983 my choice was supported by nearly a quarter of voters yet the representation we received was derisory. The EU is more democratic than the UK.
Nearly a quarter of voters wasn't enough. Had you convinced more of the other three quarters of voters then you'd have got more seats.
For some parties it would be more than enough. Look at the seats Labour received tha5 year for a handful more votes. Our democracy is crooked and broken, and maintained only because so many of our MPs enjoy jobs for life in safe seats where they have to make minimal effort to achieve perpetual re-election. It isn’t a coincidence that most of the worst expenses fraud cases were from MPs sitting in safe seats.
Can you show me one constituency that was represented by a Labour MP that didn't beat all other candidates in their constituency?
There's no such thing as a safe seat in this country, just ask Michael Portillo, not like PR where sitting on top of your parties list means you are virtually guaranteed a seat whether your party does well or badly.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Mike.
Why did you not call out 'Peoples' Vote' polls to the same degree?
Because the Daily Telegraph did not make them it's front page lead.
Well yes...I sort of get that...and its a fair point.
But is that really the only issue or is it that it also comes down on (in your view) the wrong side of the argument?
….and surely you should be actively challenging any poll that appears in the mainstream media, regardless as to whether it is the front page, page 2 of even page 20?
The page that a poll appears on is irrelevant as to whether you call out the methodology or not. Or you face the risk of being seen as inconsistent...surely..?
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Those of us who support a more proportional electoral system argue that for too many people in too many constituencies their vote is counted but it doesn't count.
I fail to see why 20% of the vote shouldn't equate to 20% of the seats in the Commons and why a majority can be formed on 36% of the vote (or even 31% according to some). Supporters of FPTP witter on about the strength and stability of majority Governments - Heath had a majority, so did Brown, so did Major - it didn't end well for any of them.
Thatcher had a three figure majority and was overturned by her own MPs.
Party list system is definitely the way to go if we're talking PR
Did my Modern Studies Standard Grade (see, I am a Scot) project on the voting system and came out as solidly against FPTP, but I care far less about the subject now.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
So do you want to remove all of it? Or only some parts? If so, which?
For instance, do you want to remove the obligation to provide details of trades to regulators so that they can monitor for possible insider trading in the markets?
If so, why? Who do you think will benefit from the removal of this provision? And where might the costs fall?
MiFID is ill-conceived because it is (in my view) inappropriate for deep, well regulated markets like the UK (and unlike most European financial centres)
Its most malignant effect has been to suck liquidity out of the market and to reduce the equity price discovery mechanism by effectively destroying the equity research business.
Not 100% sure that you can make that claim. Unbundling had plenty of positive impacts while the marginal value of the 55th BUY report on XYZ company was debatable.
Plus the markets themselves have been quite good at aiding price discovery (for the markets, sounds like you are talking about fundamental value) especially with the banning of dark pools.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Cynical nonsense. In my first GE in 1983 my choice was supported by nearly a quarter of voters yet the representation we received was derisory. The EU is more democratic than the UK.
It's quite possible for one's vote to count for very little even under PR. For example, millions of Italians voted for the Communist Party, but the party was still rigorously excluded from government.
To be fair, they excluded themselves, by being unconscionable as coalition partners. A bit like Corbyn's Labour should be - although I suspect that may not prove to be the case with the SNP if there is a hung parliament.
I'm always slightly confused by some of these regulatory discussions.
Once we leave the EU, we will still be treaty bound to implement into UK law a whole host of regulations set by international bodies made up of unelected beauracrats, under penalty of unlimited fines.
So, for example, the way that letters are addressed in the UK is set by technical committees of the International Postal Union. Those standards are embedded into UK law. And we then implement them.
Now, there is an argument (made by @Richard_Tyndall) which is an excellent one. Right now, on many (but not the Internatioanl Postal Union for example) of these standards setting bodies the UK is represented by the EU. Post Brexit, we will have our own representative. That is a genuine and serious reason for wanting a change.
But it is not true to say that suddently we will be free to have our own standards for fire safety in consumer goods (those are set by UL in the US), or acceptable electromagnetic radiation, or indeed many other things.
Now, there are areas where regulations are set locally: in particular health & safety, environmental impact, services regulation and employment law. But in most of these cases (with the possible exception of employment), those regulations are simply non tariff barriers that we'll be negotiating in the case of free trade agreements.
The US, for example, insisted in each of its free trade agreements that (a) US GM products are allowed in, and (b) that they are not discriminated against in any way (such as labelling).
Leaving the EU is about increasing the linkage between our rulers and our rules. It should mean greater accountability.
But we need to be honest too: in FTAs our sovereignty will be constrained; and we will still continue to bound by much of the product regulation that we had in the EU.
If you proceed from the assumption that we democratically send representatives to the EU who are able to negotiate a better overall deal than we might have alone and that in totality it is better to have the weight of the EU representing us than to try to go it alone, the connection between the ruled and the rulers remains intact.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Those of us who support a more proportional electoral system argue that for too many people in too many constituencies their vote is counted but it doesn't count.
I fail to see why 20% of the vote shouldn't equate to 20% of the seats in the Commons and why a majority can be formed on 36% of the vote (or even 31% according to some). Supporters of FPTP witter on about the strength and stability of majority Governments - Heath had a majority, so did Brown, so did Major - it didn't end well for any of them.
Thatcher had a three figure majority and was overturned by her own MPs.
The fact that things can turn is a positive of FPTP not a weakness.
PR tends to lead to sterility where the same old partnerships for year after year to create coalitions after the voters voted, rather than our more cut-throat option of coming up with packages and letting the voters decide.
We have that already. Just our coalitions are hidden under the veil of the Labour and the Conservative Party. Our system is dishonest.
Your arguments lends itself to the election of a government which I agree with however we also elect a legislature and it is proper for that legislature to properly reflect the views of the country. FPTP does not do that.
I'm always slightly confused by some of these regulatory discussions.
Once we leave the EU, we will still be treaty bound to implement into UK law a whole host of regulations set by international bodies made up of unelected beauracrats, under penalty of unlimited fines.
So, for example, the way that letters are addressed in the UK is set by technical committees of the International Postal Union. Those standards are embedded into UK law. And we then implement them.
Now, there is an argument (made by @Richard_Tyndall) which is an excellent one. Right now, on many (but not the Internatioanl Postal Union for example) of these standards setting bodies the UK is represented by the EU. Post Brexit, we will have our own representative. That is a genuine and serious reason for wanting a change.
But it is not true to say that suddently we will be free to have our own standards for fire safety in consumer goods (those are set by UL in the US), or acceptable electromagnetic radiation, or indeed many other things.
Now, there are areas where regulations are set locally: in particular health & safety, environmental impact, services regulation and employment law. But in most of these cases (with the possible exception of employment), those regulations are simply non tariff barriers that we'll be negotiating in the case of free trade agreements.
The US, for example, insisted in each of its free trade agreements that (a) US GM products are allowed in, and (b) that they are not discriminated against in any way (such as labelling).
Leaving the EU is about increasing the linkage between our rulers and our rules. It should mean greater accountability.
But we need to be honest too: in FTAs our sovereignty will be constrained; and we will still continue to bound by much of the product regulation that we had in the EU.
I see that @Philip_Thompson thinks it inappropriate to ask what regulations he would like to remove. I am suspicious of claims of general principle unaccompanied by any examples. It's like people claiming that the government could spend less by cutting waste but are wholly unable to identify any examples of this waste.
Anyway @rcs1000 provides an excellent example above re GM foods. Such a proposal means that I as a consumer am deprived of information I want and need to make a decision. I have no control over this because I cannot vote out those making such an agreement and even if I did the government cannot change this without tearing up the whole agreement.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Those of us who support a more proportional electoral system argue that for too many people in too many constituencies their vote is counted but it doesn't count.
I fail to see why 20% of the vote shouldn't equate to 20% of the seats in the Commons and why a majority can be formed on 36% of the vote (or even 31% according to some). Supporters of FPTP witter on about the strength and stability of majority Governments - Heath had a majority, so did Brown, so did Major - it didn't end well for any of them.
Thatcher had a three figure majority and was overturned by her own MPs.
Party list system is definitely the way to go if we're talking PR
Did my Modern Studies Standard Grade (see, I am a Scot) project on the voting system and came out as solidly against FPTP, but I care far less about the subject now.
A party list system is awful.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of PR but it should be a form of PR that allows the voters, rather than party bosses, to choose.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Those of us who support a more proportional electoral system argue that for too many people in too many constituencies their vote is counted but it doesn't count.
I fail to see why 20% of the vote shouldn't equate to 20% of the seats in the Commons and why a majority can be formed on 36% of the vote (or even 31% according to some). Supporters of FPTP witter on about the strength and stability of majority Governments - Heath had a majority, so did Brown, so did Major - it didn't end well for any of them.
Thatcher had a three figure majority and was overturned by her own MPs.
Party list system is definitely the way to go if we're talking PR
Did my Modern Studies Standard Grade (see, I am a Scot) project on the voting system and came out as solidly against FPTP, but I care far less about the subject now.
A party list system is awful.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of PR but it should be a form of PR that allows the voters, rather than party bosses, to choose.
Nah it's Party List or nothing with me. Preferential voting just doesn't make any sense to me.
I do think the subject is for GCSE/Lib Dems/Holocaust Deniers* only.
I’ll check in later to review the (doubtless lengthy) list of competition-inhibiting regulations @Philip_Thompson will have provided.
Laters!
I have thrown in the towel to be honest, nothing the No Deal contingent say on PB convinces me that we are doing the right thing but there is no alternative now, the mob are out with their pitchforks and I think it would only feed into their grievance culture if No Deal was to be stopped, even if it is our sovereign parliament doing the stopping. We just need to sit back and see what happens when we come out the other side. Nothing else will now satisfy the zealots and their media cheerleaders. I half suspect that Johnson wants to be stopped, I think it is going to be fascinating to see what he does if he isn't.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Cynical nonsense. In my first GE in 1983 my choice was supported by nearly a quarter of voters yet the representation we received was derisory. The EU is more democratic than the UK.
Nearly a quarter of voters wasn't enough. Had you convinced more of the other three quarters of voters then you'd have got more seats.
For some parties it would be more than enough. Look at the seats Labour received tha5 year for a handful more votes. Our democracy is crooked and broken, and maintained only because so many of our MPs enjoy jobs for life in safe seats where they have to make minimal effort to achieve perpetual re-election. It isn’t a coincidence that most of the worst expenses fraud cases were from MPs sitting in safe seats.
Can you show me one constituency that was represented by a Labour MP that didn't beat all other candidates in their constituency?
There's no such thing as a safe seat in this country, just ask Michael Portillo, not like PR where sitting on top of your parties list means you are virtually guaranteed a seat whether your party does well or badly.
You can post as much of your partisan sophistry as you like. Fact remains that I fully expect to die without a single vote of mine at any General Election having contributed toward the election of a sympathetic representative, despite my views being supported by anything up to a quarter of the electors each time.
The airport is a strategic asset for the PRC. It is unlikely that they will let the protesters continue unmolested.
As with Tiananmen, it looks as though the protesters are seeking to get a response from the authorities. It is a political demonstrating overshoot. The point has been made but given the lack of history of such rebellion there is no pressure guage whereby they realise that it will not achieve anything.
Of course there is debate as to whether Tiananmen achieved anything with some arguing yes and others no.
But the PRC is not going to tolerate such dissent in particular at CLK for very much longer would be my guess.
I’ll check in later to review the (doubtless lengthy) list of competition-inhibiting regulations @Philip_Thompson will have provided.
Laters!
I have thrown in the towel to be honest, nothing the No Deal contingent say on PB convinces me that we are doing the right thing but there is no alternative now, the mob are out with their pitchforks and I think it would only feed into their grievance culture if No Deal was to be stopped, even if it is our sovereign parliament doing the stopping. We just need to sit back and see what happens when we come out the other side. Nothing else will now satisfy the zealots and their media cheerleaders. I half suspect that Johnson wants to be stopped, I think it is going to be fascinating to see what he does if he isn't.
Sadly it seems that some of the potential Tory rebels are coming to the same conclusion, rather than even try to stop Bozo in his tracks.
Which is unfortunate also for Bozo, if I am right that he has expected and wanted to be stopped all along.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Cynical nonsense. In my first GE in 1983 my choice was supported by nearly a quarter of voters yet the representation we received was derisory. The EU is more democratic than the UK.
Nearly a quarter of voters wasn't enough. Had you convinced more of the other three quarters of voters then you'd have got more seats.
For some parties it would be more than enough. Look at the seats Labour received tha5 year for a handful more votes. Our democracy is crooked and broken, and maintained only because so many of our MPs enjoy jobs for life in safe seats where they have to make minimal effort to achieve perpetual re-election. It isn’t a coincidence that most of the worst expenses fraud cases were from MPs sitting in safe seats.
Can you show me one constituency that was represented by a Labour MP that didn't beat all other candidates in their constituency?
There's no such thing as a safe seat in this country, just ask Michael Portillo, not like PR where sitting on top of your parties list means you are virtually guaranteed a seat whether your party does well or badly.
You can post as much of your partisan sophistry as you like. Fact remains that I fully expect to die without a single vote of mine at any General Election having contributed toward the election of a sympathetic representative, despite my views being supported by anything up to a quarter of the electors each time.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Cynical nonsense. In my first GE in 1983 my choice was supported by nearly a quarter of voters yet the representation we received was derisory. The EU is more democratic than the UK.
Nearly a quarter of voters wasn't enough. Had you convinced more of the other three quarters of voters then you'd have got more seats.
For some parties it would be more than enough. Look at the seats Labour received tha5 year for a handful more votes. Our democracy is crooked and broken, and maintained only because so many of our MPs enjoy jobs for life in safe seats where they have to make minimal effort to achieve perpetual re-election. It isn’t a coincidence that most of the worst expenses fraud cases were from MPs sitting in safe seats.
Can you show me one constituency that was represented by a Labour MP that didn't beat all other candidates in their constituency?
There's no such thing as a safe seat in this country, just ask Michael Portillo, not like PR where sitting on top of your parties list means you are virtually guaranteed a seat whether your party does well or badly.
You can post as much of your partisan sophistry as you like. Fact remains that I fully expect to die without a single vote of mine at any General Election having contributed toward the election of a sympathetic representative, despite my views being supported by anything up to a quarter of the electors each time.
The airport is a strategic asset for the PRC. It is unlikely that they will let the protesters continue unmolested.
As with Tiananmen, it looks as though the protesters are seeking to get a response from the authorities. It is a political demonstrating overshoot. The point has been made but given the lack of history of such rebellion there is no pressure guage whereby they realise that it will not achieve anything.
Of course there is debate as to whether Tiananmen achieved anything with some arguing yes and others no.
But the PRC is not going to tolerate such dissent in particular at CLK for very much longer would be my guess.
Indeed, Losing face is such a shameful disgrace in China, this will be seen as a direct insult to Xi Jinping and his friends.
Moreover, Beijing cannot afford to let these protests "succeed", lest they give similar rebellious ideas to the Uighurs and the Tibetans, etc.
I can't see any way out except a paramilitary repression, it just depends whether they will use HK forces, or mainland troops.
The fact that things can turn is a positive of FPTP not a weakness.
PR tends to lead to sterility where the same old partnerships for year after year to create coalitions after the voters voted, rather than our more cut-throat option of coming up with packages and letting the voters decide.
IF we went down the STV route it's quite likely we'd get a bloc of centre-left parties and a bloc of centre-left parties which is, after all, what happens in many other countries and some of these countries have been very successful in their "sterility" - others less so.
I would contend there have only been three radical Governments in the last 120 years - the 1906 Asquith, the 1945 Attlee and the 1979 Thatcher (especially the 1983-87 period). I think Johnson sees himself as the heir to Thatcher so fire up the Quattro and the 2020s will be the 1980s redux.
The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.
Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.
Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.
I do not understand your point about politics.
The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.
So you’d like a regulation free Singapore style economy then?
Yes. I'd like to see us more like Singapore with regulations than France, though our own version of it, we shouldn't be exactly like them any more than we should be exactly like France.
We'll need an extra £13 billion invested in R&D then.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
So do you want to remove all of it? Or only some parts? If so, which?
For instance, do you want to remove the obligation to provide details of trades to regulators so that they can monitor for possible insider trading in the markets?
If so, why? Who do you think will benefit from the removal of this provision? And where might the costs fall?
MiFID is ill-conceived because it is (in my view) inappropriate for deep, well regulated markets like the UK (and unlike most European financial centres)
Its most malignant effect has been to suck liquidity out of the market and to reduce the equity price discovery mechanism by effectively destroying the equity research business.
Not 100% sure that you can make that claim. Unbundling had plenty of positive impacts while the marginal value of the 55th BUY report on XYZ company was debatable.
Plus the markets themselves have been quite good at aiding price discovery (for the markets, sounds like you are talking about fundamental value) especially with the banning of dark pools.
There is considerably reduced research and therefore price discovery in the smaller mid, and small cap areas post MiFID II. Perversely these are precisely the areas that should benefit most from liquid, efficient capital markets.
On the asset management side, the effects have been to drive consolidation and therefore a reduction in competition, choice and efficiency for consumers.
Okay I've got my Sky on now - I must have missed the exciting bits.
Why can't we see scenes like this outside the Scottish Parliament? With its separatist majority it's time it was shut down. Sounds like a job for the British Army.
The airport is a strategic asset for the PRC. It is unlikely that they will let the protesters continue unmolested.
As with Tiananmen, it looks as though the protesters are seeking to get a response from the authorities. It is a political demonstrating overshoot. The point has been made but given the lack of history of such rebellion there is no pressure guage whereby they realise that it will not achieve anything.
Of course there is debate as to whether Tiananmen achieved anything with some arguing yes and others no.
But the PRC is not going to tolerate such dissent in particular at CLK for very much longer would be my guess.
Indeed, Losing face is such a shameful disgrace in China, this will be seen as a direct insult to Xi Jinping and his friends.
Moreover, Beijing cannot afford to let these protests "succeed", lest they give similar rebellious ideas to the Uighurs and the Tibetans, etc.
I can't see any way out except a paramilitary repression, it just depends whether they will use HK forces, or mainland troops.
Like the protesters, the HK police are novices at this game. I wouldn't be surprised to see PLA/PSB there.
Okay I've got my Sky on now - I must have missed the exciting bits.
Why can't we see scenes like this outside the Scottish Parliament? With its separatist majority it's time it was shut down. Sounds like a job for the British Army.
It's probably gonna kick off again. The mainstream police withdrew, in fear, and now the hardcore riot squad have arrived.
EDIT: now the riot police have retreated. It's a very polite Cantonese anarchy.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.
I’ll check in later to review the (doubtless lengthy) list of competition-inhibiting regulations @Philip_Thompson will have provided.
Laters!
I have thrown in the towel to be honest, nothing the No Deal contingent say on PB convinces me that we are doing the right thing but there is no alternative now, the mob are out with their pitchforks and I think it would only feed into their grievance culture if No Deal was to be stopped, even if it is our sovereign parliament doing the stopping. We just need to sit back and see what happens when we come out the other side. Nothing else will now satisfy the zealots and their media cheerleaders. I half suspect that Johnson wants to be stopped, I think it is going to be fascinating to see what he does if he isn't.
Don't give up. Those who say that X is bad and Y should be done need to be continually pressed for specifics on what is wrong, what the plan for the future is and how it will cure the mischiefs complained of.
They may get their No Deal Brexit through. I think this now very likely. But unless you have a plan and have some specific answers then you risk matters going wrong.
The airport is a strategic asset for the PRC. It is unlikely that they will let the protesters continue unmolested.
As with Tiananmen, it looks as though the protesters are seeking to get a response from the authorities. It is a political demonstrating overshoot. The point has been made but given the lack of history of such rebellion there is no pressure guage whereby they realise that it will not achieve anything.
Of course there is debate as to whether Tiananmen achieved anything with some arguing yes and others no.
But the PRC is not going to tolerate such dissent in particular at CLK for very much longer would be my guess.
Indeed, Losing face is such a shameful disgrace in China, this will be seen as a direct insult to Xi Jinping and his friends.
Moreover, Beijing cannot afford to let these protests "succeed", lest they give similar rebellious ideas to the Uighurs and the Tibetans, etc.
I can't see any way out except a paramilitary repression, it just depends whether they will use HK forces, or mainland troops.
Once again we have simultaneous pressure on the regimes in Moscow and Beijing. Perhaps with the same outcome in both cases.
Because we set the laws for our own country and then operate within them, we don't set the laws for other countries. We also maintain the right to change our own laws, we don't have the right to change other countries laws.
I believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. I believe that is the key to progress. If we think we can improve our country by lowering taxes for example, and another nation believes they can improve theirs by raising taxes and spending on XYZ I see no reason why we shouldn't do what we want, and they shouldn't do what they want. If we realise that XYZ works, then we can copy them - and we benefit from their experimentation. If they realise XYZ is a disaster they can drop it - and we benefit from not copying their failure.
Either way, the greater the variance, the greater the chance to have successes and failures which leads to progress. Harmonisation leads to stagnation.
We have 2 things getting mixed up here. (1) Progress through competition. (2) Democracy.
Need to uncouple.
Number 1, 'survival of the fittest', requires that the competition be pure. For example, do the best footballers end up at the top teams? Yes. But do the most able people end up at the top of the professions? No. Reason? The 1st depends almost exclusively on talent and hard work, the 2nd to a great extent on social background. There is a 'level playing field' in one and not the other. Hence standards in football rise, but in the professions not so much.
OK. So let's agree for now that this notion of pure competition leading to higher performance (as in football) is a true and great thing and therefore we wish to see it across the board.
So why bring Democracy into it? There is no logic there. You can have competition without democracy and you can have democracy without competition. The reason you bring democracy into it is so you can laud the nation state (which I think you fetishize). I think that is what this is all about for you.
I can deduce this because if progress through (fair) competition was truly the priority, then the aspiration would be global, which requires a global level playing field. Every person having the same (maximized) chance to realize their potential in life. The UK being able to slash regulation or to put quotas on food imports has next to nothing to do with that.
Okay I've got my Sky on now - I must have missed the exciting bits.
Why can't we see scenes like this outside the Scottish Parliament? With its separatist majority it's time it was shut down. Sounds like a job for the British Army.
The fact that things can turn is a positive of FPTP not a weakness.
PR tends to lead to sterility where the same old partnerships for year after year to create coalitions after the voters voted, rather than our more cut-throat option of coming up with packages and letting the voters decide.
IF we went down the STV route it's quite likely we'd get a bloc of centre-left parties and a bloc of centre-left parties which is, after all, what happens in many other countries and some of these countries have been very successful in their "sterility" - others less so.
I would contend there have only been three radical Governments in the last 120 years - the 1906 Asquith, the 1945 Attlee and the 1979 Thatcher (especially the 1983-87 period). I think Johnson sees himself as the heir to Thatcher so fire up the Quattro and the 2020s will be the 1980s redux.
No he certainly doesn't see himself as Thatcher. Churchill is the model. Read his book on WSC - which, despite the snotty reviews, is very readable like the rest of the Johnson corpus. Cometh the hour, cometh the man, etc.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.
And that is the question I was answering....
The specific question I asked you was whether you wanted to get rid of the MiFiD provisions requiring firms to provide transaction and order information to regulators so that they can monitor for market abuse/insider trading.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.
And that is the question I was answering....
Fair enough. It is their market though and we are the ones that want to participate. Which plays in to @rcs1000's point. If we want to trade Deutsche Bank then we need to follow them rules.
Okay I've got my Sky on now - I must have missed the exciting bits.
Why can't we see scenes like this outside the Scottish Parliament? With its separatist majority it's time it was shut down. Sounds like a job for the British Army.
Stop trolling man.
Well how else are we going to shut down the Scottish Parliament?? I suggest weekly demonstrations; if we can't get the British Army to do it for us.
No he certainly doesn't see himself as Thatcher. Churchill is the model. Read his book on WSC - which, despite the snotty reviews, is very readable like the rest of the Johnson corpus. Cometh the hour, cometh the man, etc.
Churchill wasn't a Conservative or a Tory - he was a Liberal Unionist - which might surprise some of the professed Tories. I find that comparison curious given the degree to which we were told by @HYUFD and others how a No Deal Brexit would endanger the Union before Johnson became Prime Minister.
If a No Deal Brexit is such a high risk to the Union, why is Johnson contemplating it when May clearly couldn't? May was in fact the Unionist - Johnson is much more about the preservation of himself and the Conservative Party (in that order) than the preservation of the Union.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.
And that is the question I was answering....
The specific question I asked you was whether you wanted to get rid of the MiFiD provisions requiring firms to provide transaction and order information to regulators so that they can monitor for market abuse/insider trading.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.
And that is the question I was answering....
The specific question I asked you was whether you wanted to get rid of the MiFiD provisions requiring firms to provide transaction and order information to regulators so that they can monitor for market abuse/insider trading.
And your answer is....?
I am equivocal. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and is laborious. But I don't really have a strong view on those particular provisions...
No he certainly doesn't see himself as Thatcher. Churchill is the model. Read his book on WSC - which, despite the snotty reviews, is very readable like the rest of the Johnson corpus. Cometh the hour, cometh the man, etc.
Churchill wasn't a Conservative or a Tory - he was a Liberal Unionist - which might surprise some of the professed Tories. I find that comparison curious given the degree to which we were told by @HYUFD and others how a No Deal Brexit would endanger the Union before Johnson became Prime Minister.
If a No Deal Brexit is such a high risk to the Union, why is Johnson contemplating it when May clearly couldn't? May was in fact the Unionist - Johnson is much more about the preservation of himself and the Conservative Party (in that order) than the preservation of the Union.
Some truth in that, although I think Churchill's views developed over his immensely long career. I think Boris is a firm Unionist, as it happens, but the inexorable logic of the Brexit process has led him (and us) to where we are. I should say that there is a line of argument which is that Brexit is not necessarily as fatal to the Union as received wisdom has it. If there is a second IndyRef it will be fought as a chocie between UK and EU rather than should Scotland be independent. That is definitely winnable from a unionist POV.
Okay I've got my Sky on now - I must have missed the exciting bits.
Why can't we see scenes like this outside the Scottish Parliament? With its separatist majority it's time it was shut down. Sounds like a job for the British Army.
Stop trolling man.
Well how else are we going to shut down the Scottish Parliament?? I suggest weekly demonstrations; if we can't get the British Army to do it for us.
Boris should follows Zonggoa's example and take a hardline stance on Nicola and her cohorts
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.
And that is the question I was answering....
Fair enough. It is their market though and we are the ones that want to participate. Which plays in to @rcs1000's point. If we want to trade Deutsche Bank then we need to follow them rules.
That's as maybe. But the point is as a member of the EU we were obliged to follow them and they are basically anti-competitive...
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.
And that is the question I was answering....
Fair enough. It is their market though and we are the ones that want to participate. Which plays in to @rcs1000's point. If we want to trade Deutsche Bank then we need to follow them rules.
That's as maybe. But the point is as a member of the EU we were obliged to follow them and they are basically anti-competitive...
Not as a member of the EU, it is if you have an EU client. Same will apply after we leave the EU.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
You votes always counted.
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Cynical nonsense. In my first GE in 1983 my choice was supported by nearly a quarter of voters yet the representation we received was derisory. The EU is more democratic than the UK.
Nearly a quarter of voters wasn't enough. Had you convinced more of the other three quarters of voters then you'd have got more seats.
For some parties it would be more than enough. Look at the seats Labour received tha5 year for a handful more votes. Our democracy is crooked and broken, and maintained only because so many of our MPs enjoy jobs for life in safe seats where they have to make minimal effort to achieve perpetual re-election. It isn’t a coincidence that most of the worst expenses fraud cases were from MPs sitting in safe seats.
Can you show me one constituency that was represented by a Labour MP that didn't beat all other candidates in their constituency?
There's no such thing as a safe seat in this country, just ask Michael Portillo, not like PR where sitting on top of your parties list means you are virtually guaranteed a seat whether your party does well or badly.
You can post as much of your partisan sophistry as you like. Fact remains that I fully expect to die without a single vote of mine at any General Election having contributed toward the election of a sympathetic representative, despite my views being supported by anything up to a quarter of the electors each time.
Sounds like you have quite fringe political views
Fact remains, I can look at the EU and, for much of my life, see someone with some influence there who my vote has helped to elect. That has never been the case for the UK Parliament. Dismiss my views if you wish, but I don’t regard that as an acceptable state of affairs.
No he certainly doesn't see himself as Thatcher. Churchill is the model. Read his book on WSC - which, despite the snotty reviews, is very readable like the rest of the Johnson corpus. Cometh the hour, cometh the man, etc.
Churchill wasn't a Conservative or a Tory - he was a Liberal Unionist - which might surprise some of the professed Tories. I find that comparison curious given the degree to which we were told by @HYUFD and others how a No Deal Brexit would endanger the Union before Johnson became Prime Minister.
If a No Deal Brexit is such a high risk to the Union, why is Johnson contemplating it when May clearly couldn't? May was in fact the Unionist - Johnson is much more about the preservation of himself and the Conservative Party (in that order) than the preservation of the Union.
Only 46% of Scots back independence in the latest Ashcroft poll including Don't Knows even with No Deal looming, only 1% more than voted Yes in 2014
The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.
Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.
Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.
I do not understand your point about politics.
The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.
So you’d like a regulation free Singapore style economy then?
Yes. I'd like to see us more like Singapore with regulations than France, though our own version of it, we shouldn't be exactly like them any more than we should be exactly like France.
We'll need an extra £13 billion invested in R&D then.
No he certainly doesn't see himself as Thatcher. Churchill is the model. Read his book on WSC - which, despite the snotty reviews, is very readable like the rest of the Johnson corpus. Cometh the hour, cometh the man, etc.
Churchill wasn't a Conservative or a Tory - he was a Liberal Unionist - which might surprise some of the professed Tories. I find that comparison curious given the degree to which we were told by @HYUFD and others how a No Deal Brexit would endanger the Union before Johnson became Prime Minister.
If a No Deal Brexit is such a high risk to the Union, why is Johnson contemplating it when May clearly couldn't? May was in fact the Unionist - Johnson is much more about the preservation of himself and the Conservative Party (in that order) than the preservation of the Union.
Only 46% of Scots back independence in the latest Ashcroft poll including Don't Knows even with No Deal looming, only 1% more than voted Yes in 2014
Think we need to see the trend. As I recall an SNP pre-condition of a second IndyRef was consistent "Yes" support at around 60%.
No he certainly doesn't see himself as Thatcher. Churchill is the model. Read his book on WSC - which, despite the snotty reviews, is very readable like the rest of the Johnson corpus. Cometh the hour, cometh the man, etc.
Churchill wasn't a Conservative or a Tory - he was a Liberal Unionist - which might surprise some of the professed Tories. I find that comparison curious given the degree to which we were told by @HYUFD and others how a No Deal Brexit would endanger the Union before Johnson became Prime Minister.
If a No Deal Brexit is such a high risk to the Union, why is Johnson contemplating it when May clearly couldn't? May was in fact the Unionist - Johnson is much more about the preservation of himself and the Conservative Party (in that order) than the preservation of the Union.
Only 46% of Scots back independence in the latest Ashcroft poll including Don't Knows even with No Deal looming, only 1% more than voted Yes in 2014
Think we need to see the trend. As I recall an SNP pre-condition of a second IndyRef was consistent "Yes" support at around 60%.
Lol The SNP pre-condition was "whenever we can get away with it"
We have that already. Just our coalitions are hidden under the veil of the Labour and the Conservative Party. Our system is dishonest.
Your arguments lends itself to the election of a government which I agree with however we also elect a legislature and it is proper for that legislature to properly reflect the views of the country. FPTP does not do that.
Our coalitions within the Labour and Conservative Parties are known about prior to the election, not after it. Big difference.
I disagree 100%. Divergence allows for innovation. And, I see nothing wrong with allowing peoples to opt for differing levels of regulation, spending, and taxation. One group of people may opt for lower levels of tax and spend, another for higher levels. Each choice is a legitimate one.
The more that countries diverge on regulation and tax rates, the more innovation and progress we expect to see? Really?
As to democratic choices being legitimate, I agree - with the normal caveat of fundamental human rights being respected. But it doesn't follow that these choices have a positive impact. That was my point. For example, a country could vote to drop key environmental regulation or to make gun ownership easier.
We have that already. Just our coalitions are hidden under the veil of the Labour and the Conservative Party. Our system is dishonest.
Your arguments lends itself to the election of a government which I agree with however we also elect a legislature and it is proper for that legislature to properly reflect the views of the country. FPTP does not do that.
Our coalitions within the Labour and Conservative Parties are known about prior to the election, not after it. Big difference.
Lol @ “known prior”. Labour voters have no idea what their vote might lead to. Neither did voters for Mrs May. Bozo’s position appears clearer, but time will tell. Nevertheless we got Bozo because of the people who voted for Mrs May, not for Bozo.
The police have to go in now and save this guy at the airport.
The whole world is watching. Incredible.
Next time Scottish Nats and Sturgeon complain about being ignored by Westminster I hope Boris reminds them of what the likes of Xi and Rajoy have done to internal dissenters and separatists and how lucky they are and were to get indyref 2014
The police have to go in now and save this guy at the airport.
The whole world is watching. Incredible.
Next time Scottish Nats and Sturgeon complain about being ignored by Westminster I hope Boris reminds them of what the likes of Xi and Rajoy have done to internal dissenters and separatists and how lucky they are and were to get indyref2 2014
We have that already. Just our coalitions are hidden under the veil of the Labour and the Conservative Party. Our system is dishonest.
Your arguments lends itself to the election of a government which I agree with however we also elect a legislature and it is proper for that legislature to properly reflect the views of the country. FPTP does not do that.
Our coalitions within the Labour and Conservative Parties are known about prior to the election, not after it. Big difference.
Lol @ “known prior”. Labour voters have no idea what their vote might lead to. Neither did voters for Mrs May. Bozo’s position appears clearer, but time will tell. Nevertheless we got Bozo because of the people who voted for Mrs May, not for Bozo.
Everyone who voted for May knew Boris was in her party. It's not like they voted May and got Farage which can happen in Europe.
The police have to go in now and save this guy at the airport.
The whole world is watching. Incredible.
Next time Scottish Nats and Sturgeon complain about being ignored by Westminster I hope Boris reminds them of what the likes of Xi and Rajoy have done to internal dissenters and separatists and how lucky they are and were to get indyref 2014
I disagree 100%. Divergence allows for innovation. And, I see nothing wrong with allowing peoples to opt for differing levels of regulation, spending, and taxation. One group of people may opt for lower levels of tax and spend, another for higher levels. Each choice is a legitimate one.
The more that countries diverge on regulation and tax rates, the more innovation and progress we expect to see? Really?
As to democratic choices being legitimate, I agree - with the normal caveat of fundamental human rights being respected. But it doesn't follow that these choices have a positive impact. That was my point. For example, a country could vote to drop key environmental regulation or to make gun ownership easier.
Certainly, that's what I'd expect to see. The more that countries diverge, the easier it is to establish what worksand what doesn't work.
I’ll check in later to review the (doubtless lengthy) list of competition-inhibiting regulations @Philip_Thompson will have provided.
Laters!
I have thrown in the towel to be honest, nothing the No Deal contingent say on PB convinces me that we are doing the right thing but there is no alternative now, the mob are out with their pitchforks and I think it would only feed into their grievance culture if No Deal was to be stopped, even if it is our sovereign parliament doing the stopping. We just need to sit back and see what happens when we come out the other side. Nothing else will now satisfy the zealots and their media cheerleaders. I half suspect that Johnson wants to be stopped, I think it is going to be fascinating to see what he does if he isn't.
Sadly it seems that some of the potential Tory rebels are coming to the same conclusion, rather than even try to stop Bozo in his tracks.
Which is unfortunate also for Bozo, if I am right that he has expected and wanted to be stopped all along.
I have increasingly come round to the view that Johnson wants to be stopped from leaving without a deal. Stopping him by any means now is simply playing into his hands. I think grinning and breaking it is now the best option.
The police have to go in now and save this guy at the airport.
The whole world is watching. Incredible.
Next time Scottish Nats and Sturgeon complain about being ignored by Westminster I hope Boris reminds them of what the likes of Xi and Rajoy have done to internal dissenters and separatists and how lucky they are and were to get indyref 2014
And you as a diehard remainer would be first up against the wall, sunshine.
I’ll check in later to review the (doubtless lengthy) list of competition-inhibiting regulations @Philip_Thompson will have provided.
Laters!
I have thrown in the towel to be honest, nothing the No Deal contingent say on PB convinces me that we are doing the right thing but there is no alternative now, the mob are out with their pitchforks and I think it would only feed into their grievance culture if No Deal was to be stopped, even if it is our sovereign parliament doing the stopping. We just need to sit back and see what happens when we come out the other side. Nothing else will now satisfy the zealots and their media cheerleaders. I half suspect that Johnson wants to be stopped, I think it is going to be fascinating to see what he does if he isn't.
Don't give up. Those who say that X is bad and Y should be done need to be continually pressed for specifics on what is wrong, what the plan for the future is and how it will cure the mischiefs complained of.
They may get their No Deal Brexit through. I think this now very likely. But unless you have a plan and have some specific answers then you risk matters going wrong.
I'm ready for the post Brexit battle but I believe that if parliament blocks No Deal now it will play into Johnson's and Cumming's hands
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.
And that is the question I was answering....
The specific question I asked you was whether you wanted to get rid of the MiFiD provisions requiring firms to provide transaction and order information to regulators so that they can monitor for market abuse/insider trading.
And your answer is....?
Um are you conflating MiFID and MAD?
No. There are MiFiD2 requirements re the transaction and order data which needs to be stored and be retrievable. Regulators then ask for this data in order to help them fulfill their obligations under MAD and other rules.
It was one of the last projects I was involved with as an employee and the meetings and conversations with the FCA are seared on my memory.
I see that @Philip_Thompson thinks it inappropriate to ask what regulations he would like to remove. I am suspicious of claims of general principle unaccompanied by any examples. It's like people claiming that the government could spend less by cutting waste but are wholly unable to identify any examples of this waste.
No it is not like saying we should cut waste. It is like saying we should elect politicians who are responsible for the budget.
The public can elect a government then to cut spending or raise spending as we vote. Do you see the difference @Cyclefree ?
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.
And that is the question I was answering....
The specific question I asked you was whether you wanted to get rid of the MiFiD provisions requiring firms to provide transaction and order information to regulators so that they can monitor for market abuse/insider trading.
And your answer is....?
Um are you conflating MiFID and MAD?
No. There are MiFiD2 requirements re the transaction and order data which needs to be stored and be retrievable. Regulators then ask for this data in order to help them fulfill their obligations under MAD and other rules.
It was one of the last projects I was involved with as an employee and the meetings and conversations with the FCA are seared on my memory.
I see that @Philip_Thompson thinks it inappropriate to ask what regulations he would like to remove. I am suspicious of claims of general principle unaccompanied by any examples. It's like people claiming that the government could spend less by cutting waste but are wholly unable to identify any examples of this waste.
No it is not like saying we should cut waste. It is like saying we should elect politicians who are responsible for the budget.
The public can elect a government then to cut spending or raise spending as we vote. Do you see the difference @Cyclefree ?
I have given you a specific example re GM foods where consumers' rights will be worse regardless of their ability to vote for this or that politician.
My question still is: what regulations do you think are making us uncompetitive because we are in the EU and which you want to get rid of once we leave? Surely you have 1 or 2 examples.
Comments
You may have lost, but so be it. Democracy doesn't mean you get to win, it means you get to have a say - if more people agree with you than anyone else you win, if not you lose.
Mr. Gate, whereas PR allows parties with far less support to have more influence. There are arguments for and against the various methods.
So discrimination - if you know what that means - was exactly what was under discussion.
We will not be able to vote to change those rules, whereas before - even if tenuously - we were able to.
Without divergence we have stagnation. Divergence is a good thing in itself - some divergences would be good or bad, but overall having divergence leads to innovation.
Its ironic that people who would be horrified if we said everyone should look the same, seem to think its OK to say every country should look the same.
What you're saying kinabalu is basically that diversity is bad. I disagree.
I fail to see why 20% of the vote shouldn't equate to 20% of the seats in the Commons and why a majority can be formed on 36% of the vote (or even 31% according to some). Supporters of FPTP witter on about the strength and stability of majority Governments - Heath had a majority, so did Brown, so did Major - it didn't end well for any of them.
Thatcher had a three figure majority and was overturned by her own MPs.
It is you Mr Glass Half Empty who is turning it into something it is not. None of this is about racism.
PR tends to lead to sterility where the same old partnerships for year after year to create coalitions after the voters voted, rather than our more cut-throat option of coming up with packages and letting the voters decide.
https://twitter.com/ThomasVLinge/status/1161292456077463552?s=20
China will crush Hong Kong, and take the economic pain, rather than allow this dissent to prosper.
There's no such thing as a safe seat in this country, just ask Michael Portillo, not like PR where sitting on top of your parties list means you are virtually guaranteed a seat whether your party does well or badly.
The page that a poll appears on is irrelevant as to whether you call out the methodology or not. Or you face the risk of being seen as inconsistent...surely..?
Did my Modern Studies Standard Grade (see, I am a Scot) project on the voting system and came out as solidly against FPTP, but I care far less about the subject now.
The 'terrorist' language yesterday heralded a crackdown.
40 years for me.
England requires PR in GE and local elections, to be described as democratic.
Plus the markets themselves have been quite good at aiding price discovery (for the markets, sounds like you are talking about fundamental value) especially with the banning of dark pools.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1161293411061784577?s=20
Chinese nationalists are all over Twitter calling for a PLA crackdown. People are going to die.
Your arguments lends itself to the election of a government which I agree with however we also elect a legislature and it is proper for that legislature to properly reflect the views of the country. FPTP does not do that.
Anyway @rcs1000 provides an excellent example above re GM foods. Such a proposal means that I as a consumer am deprived of information I want and need to make a decision. I have no control over this because I cannot vote out those making such an agreement and even if I did the government cannot change this without tearing up the whole agreement.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of PR but it should be a form of PR that allows the voters, rather than party bosses, to choose.
https://twitter.com/Joobertt/status/1161295520922558464?s=20
I do think the subject is for GCSE/Lib Dems/Holocaust Deniers* only.
Edit: *soz forgotten his name
Also the most woke man to have ever stolen a tuk-tuk.
As with Tiananmen, it looks as though the protesters are seeking to get a response from the authorities. It is a political demonstrating overshoot. The point has been made but given the lack of history of such rebellion there is no pressure guage whereby they realise that it will not achieve anything.
Of course there is debate as to whether Tiananmen achieved anything with some arguing yes and others no.
But the PRC is not going to tolerate such dissent in particular at CLK for very much longer would be my guess.
So the Riot Police have been called in. So what? Dubenski covers this kind of thing with her hard helmet on every week.
Sadly it seems that some of the potential Tory rebels are coming to the same conclusion, rather than even try to stop Bozo in his tracks.
Which is unfortunate also for Bozo, if I am right that he has expected and wanted to be stopped all along.
Moreover, Beijing cannot afford to let these protests "succeed", lest they give similar rebellious ideas to the Uighurs and the Tibetans, etc.
I can't see any way out except a paramilitary repression, it just depends whether they will use HK forces, or mainland troops.
I would contend there have only been three radical Governments in the last 120 years - the 1906 Asquith, the 1945 Attlee and the 1979 Thatcher (especially the 1983-87 period). I think Johnson sees himself as the heir to Thatcher so fire up the Quattro and the 2020s will be the 1980s redux.
On the asset management side, the effects have been to drive consolidation and therefore a reduction in competition, choice and efficiency for consumers.
Why can't we see scenes like this outside the Scottish Parliament? With its separatist majority it's time it was shut down. Sounds like a job for the British Army.
EDIT: now the riot police have retreated. It's a very polite Cantonese anarchy.
And that is the question I was answering....
They may get their No Deal Brexit through. I think this now very likely. But unless you have a plan and have some specific answers then you risk matters going wrong.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-13/moscow-protests-are-getting-more-dangerous-for-putin
Need to uncouple.
Number 1, 'survival of the fittest', requires that the competition be pure. For example, do the best footballers end up at the top teams? Yes. But do the most able people end up at the top of the professions? No. Reason? The 1st depends almost exclusively on talent and hard work, the 2nd to a great extent on social background. There is a 'level playing field' in one and not the other. Hence standards in football rise, but in the professions not so much.
OK. So let's agree for now that this notion of pure competition leading to higher performance (as in football) is a true and great thing and therefore we wish to see it across the board.
So why bring Democracy into it? There is no logic there. You can have competition without democracy and you can have democracy without competition. The reason you bring democracy into it is so you can laud the nation state (which I think you fetishize). I think that is what this is all about for you.
I can deduce this because if progress through (fair) competition was truly the priority, then the aspiration would be global, which requires a global level playing field. Every person having the same (maximized) chance to realize their potential in life. The UK being able to slash regulation or to put quotas on food imports has next to nothing to do with that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1161297824295899136?s=20
The army could go in tonight.
And your answer is....?
If a No Deal Brexit is such a high risk to the Union, why is Johnson contemplating it when May clearly couldn't? May was in fact the Unionist - Johnson is much more about the preservation of himself and the Conservative Party (in that order) than the preservation of the Union.
The whole world is watching. Incredible.
As to democratic choices being legitimate, I agree - with the normal caveat of fundamental human rights being respected. But it doesn't follow that these choices have a positive impact. That was my point. For example, a country could vote to drop key environmental regulation or to make gun ownership easier.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UK_cable_on_Tiananmen_Square_Massacre
I'm ready for the post Brexit battle but I believe that if parliament blocks No Deal now it will play into Johnson's and Cumming's hands
It was one of the last projects I was involved with as an employee and the meetings and conversations with the FCA are seared on my memory.
The public can elect a government then to cut spending or raise spending as we vote. Do you see the difference @Cyclefree ?
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1OwxWkNdNapxQ
My question still is: what regulations do you think are making us uncompetitive because we are in the EU and which you want to get rid of once we leave? Surely you have 1 or 2 examples.