Scathing review of Johnson’s PMQs performance in the Telegraph
I thought it was his best one against Starmer yet actually ! First reaction was a draw, the subsequent clips and various hostages to fortune weren't great for him though.
Johnson had the best soundbite: "We're builders; they're blockers" Governments have a huge advantage over oppositions in that they can announce things, like Johnson's building programme. Oppositions have the options only of supporting the programme or criticising it when they aren't in a position to do anything different. Neither of these options are helpful to oppositions.
Starmer dealt with this very cleverly. His first question was, that building programme is a bit small isn't it? And then turned his questions to the virus where the government is on the back foot. By the time Johnson trotted out his soundbite, it sounded more like an excuse than a boast.
I agree it wasn't a slam dunk for Starmer. Johnson has more energy than he has had for a while. It was by no means the car crash of his early PMQs. But each time he goes through this he loses just a little more credibility. I don't know if Starmer will keep this going for four years until the next planned election. It sort of feels like a cat playing with a mouse right now.
The fascist iconography of Trumpism is hiding in plain sight. If Trump were smarter he would really be dangerous.
I don't see it. The eagle is a symbol of America left, right or centre.
That fascists have used it doesn't change that. Trump is a racist who deserves to lose, but there's stronger connections than he uses an eagle in his artwork to say that.
But the same eagle, posed in the same way, sitting atop a circular shield carrying the national logo? Has that same imagery been used before Trump?
It is a mystery how Johnson hopes to get away with packaging a re-announcement of already promised investment, now spread over eight years rather than five, as anything comparable to the US's New Deal.
The government has a very low opinion of the British people. You can tell that by the ease with which it lies to us. It believes it can say and do anything, without consequence. Once it has finished with the judiciary, the civil service and the emasculaiotn of Parliament that may well be the case.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
To try an analogy:
A party runs in the policy of painting Buckingham Palace blue (and nothing else) and wins 35% of the vote.
Another party wins 20% support for their sole policy of painting it red.
They agree to form a coalition.
@IanB2@PClipp et al argue that it legitimate because they received over 50% of the vote
@Philip_Thompson argues that no one voted for a coalition government with a compromise policy of painting Buckingham Palace purple and therefore it is illegitimate
Aren't they both right?
Ultimately, if they paint it purple they will have betrayed their manifestos. But that would also be true if they'd not painted it at all because of a plague of locusts.
They have been elected, and they will need to face the electorate next time around.
Scathing review of Johnson’s PMQs performance in the Telegraph
I thought it was his best one against Starmer yet actually ! First reaction was a draw, the subsequent clips and various hostages to fortune weren't great for him though.
Johnson had the best soundbite: "We're builders; they're blockers" Governments have a huge advantage over oppositions in that they can announce things, like Johnson's building programme. Oppositions have the options only of supporting the programme or criticising it when they aren't in a position to do anything different. Neither of these options are helpful to oppositions.
Starmer dealt with this very cleverly. His first question was, that building programme is a bit small isn't it? And then turned his questions to the virus where the government is on the back foot. By the time Johnson trotted out his soundbite, it sounded more like an excuse than a boast.
I agree it wasn't a slam dunk for Starmer. Johnson has more energy than he has had for a while. It was by no means the car crash of his early PMQs. But each time he goes through this he loses just a little more credibility. I don't know if Starmer will keep this going for four years until the next planned election. It sort of feels like a cat playing with a mouse right now.
Oppositions just need to swerve the "what's your policy on X" and allow the govt to do the damage to itself.
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
The fascist iconography of Trumpism is hiding in plain sight. If Trump were smarter he would really be dangerous.
I don't see it. The eagle is a symbol of America left, right or centre.
That fascists have used it doesn't change that. Trump is a racist who deserves to lose, but there's stronger connections than he uses an eagle in his artwork to say that.
There's always a degree of subjectivity with images. It's a bit like the famous mural. It was quite clearly anti-Semitic to me (although possibly subconsciously on the part of the artist, I don't know). But an old friend of mine really couldn't see it, he said these are just likenesses of real historical figures, not all of them are Jewish, etc etc. I wondered whether the fact that I studied history at school, covering the Nazi period where we looked at things like anti Semitic propaganda, and he didn't, might have explained it. To me it is obvious that these graphics, like a lot of Trump iconography, have a fascist flavour to them. Themes like extreme patriotism, violence and dominance, aggression and anger, militarism and authority, all feature strongly. Luckily, Trump doesn't have a political philosophy so isn't really a fascist. He's just a narcissist who knows which buttons to press. Some of his supporters and henchmen are though I think. My guess is that the American Republic will survive Trump but he has certainly awoken something disturbing in US society. None of us should need reminding how dangerous fascism is.
Yes but saying “his t-shirt is a bit like the Nazis” is a childish approach. You’re approach is more valid
Scathing review of Johnson’s PMQs performance in the Telegraph
I thought it was his best one against Starmer yet actually ! First reaction was a draw, the subsequent clips and various hostages to fortune weren't great for him though.
The bit that poiliticasl junkies forget about PMQs is that the clips are what the vast majority see. And when you see clips what you see is a scruffy man who cannot string a sentence together against a well-presented one who speaks with calm fluency. There is no way that PMQs is goin to survive the current Parliament in its current format. Cummings will ensure it is changed so that Johnson faces less scrutiny.
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Just check out Nadine Dorries' Tweet, and CHB's notion comes into focus.
The fascist iconography of Trumpism is hiding in plain sight. If Trump were smarter he would really be dangerous.
I don't see it. The eagle is a symbol of America left, right or centre.
That fascists have used it doesn't change that. Trump is a racist who deserves to lose, but there's stronger connections than he uses an eagle in his artwork to say that.
There's always a degree of subjectivity with images. It's a bit like the famous mural. It was quite clearly anti-Semitic to me (although possibly subconsciously on the part of the artist, I don't know). But an old friend of mine really couldn't see it, he said these are just likenesses of real historical figures, not all of them are Jewish, etc etc. I wondered whether the fact that I studied history at school, covering the Nazi period where we looked at things like anti Semitic propaganda, and he didn't, might have explained it. To me it is obvious that these graphics, like a lot of Trump iconography, have a fascist flavour to them. Themes like extreme patriotism, violence and dominance, aggression and anger, militarism and authority, all feature strongly. Luckily, Trump doesn't have a political philosophy so isn't really a fascist. He's just a narcissist who knows which buttons to press. Some of his supporters and henchmen are though I think. My guess is that the American Republic will survive Trump but he has certainly awoken something disturbing in US society. None of us should need reminding how dangerous fascism is.
Yes but saying “his t-shirt is a bit like the Nazis” is a childish approach. You’re approach is more valid
I think it pays to be vigilant on all fronts. There are more concrete examples than iconography of course, such as separating children from their parents and putting them in cages. That was the point where I refused to treat Trump as just another politician that I didn't like.
It is a mystery how Johnson hopes to get away with packaging a re-announcement of already promised investment, now spread over eight years rather than five, as anything comparable to the US's New Deal.
How does a single roundabout cost £14m!
Probably for the same reason that a new park bench costs £4000
The last park bench that I had anything to do with buying cost £1600 about 4 years ago.
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
Thankfully, it is only in Leicester that people have been ignoring the lockdown rules. We are equally lucky that it is only those who do not speak good English that are doing it.
The fascist iconography of Trumpism is hiding in plain sight. If Trump were smarter he would really be dangerous.
I don't see it. The eagle is a symbol of America left, right or centre.
That fascists have used it doesn't change that. Trump is a racist who deserves to lose, but there's stronger connections than he uses an eagle in his artwork to say that.
There's always a degree of subjectivity with images. It's a bit like the famous mural. It was quite clearly anti-Semitic to me (although possibly subconsciously on the part of the artist, I don't know). But an old friend of mine really couldn't see it, he said these are just likenesses of real historical figures, not all of them are Jewish, etc etc. I wondered whether the fact that I studied history at school, covering the Nazi period where we looked at things like anti Semitic propaganda, and he didn't, might have explained it. To me it is obvious that these graphics, like a lot of Trump iconography, have a fascist flavour to them. Themes like extreme patriotism, violence and dominance, aggression and anger, militarism and authority, all feature strongly. Luckily, Trump doesn't have a political philosophy so isn't really a fascist. He's just a narcissist who knows which buttons to press. Some of his supporters and henchmen are though I think. My guess is that the American Republic will survive Trump but he has certainly awoken something disturbing in US society. None of us should need reminding how dangerous fascism is.
Strangely, there's a Hollywood blockbuster that gives a better insight into Trump's character than whole reams of journalistic analysis that I've read, because as you say he's largely just an opportunistic narcissistic. The character of Biff Tannen from Back to the Future is based on Trump, and in the second film a huge photograph of his face, mounted high up on what looks like Trump Towers, and framed by neon and gold, dominates small town America partly through fascination, jealousy and fear.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
To try an analogy:
A party runs in the policy of painting Buckingham Palace blue (and nothing else) and wins 35% of the vote.
Another party wins 20% support for their sole policy of painting it red.
They agree to form a coalition.
@IanB2@PClipp et al argue that it legitimate because they received over 50% of the vote
@Philip_Thompson argues that no one voted for a coalition government with a compromise policy of painting Buckingham Palace purple and therefore it is illegitimate
Aren't they both right?
Ultimately, if they paint it purple they will have betrayed their manifestos. But that would also be true if they'd not painted it at all because of a plague of locusts.
They have been elected, and they will need to face the electorate next time around.
They can’t both be right! You can’t be legitimate and illegitimate at the same time...
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s. Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
A tip!
You could have started your statement with "I'm not racist but..."
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
Thankfully, it is only in Leicester that people have been ignoring the lockdown rules. We are equally lucky that it is only those who do not speak good English that are doing it.
Yet it is Leicester which has a current infection rate three times higher than anywhere else.
And its tolerance of the sweat shop economy has been known about for years.
The fascist iconography of Trumpism is hiding in plain sight. If Trump were smarter he would really be dangerous.
I don't see it. The eagle is a symbol of America left, right or centre.
That fascists have used it doesn't change that. Trump is a racist who deserves to lose, but there's stronger connections than he uses an eagle in his artwork to say that.
There's always a degree of subjectivity with images. It's a bit like the famous mural. It was quite clearly anti-Semitic to me (although possibly subconsciously on the part of the artist, I don't know). But an old friend of mine really couldn't see it, he said these are just likenesses of real historical figures, not all of them are Jewish, etc etc. I wondered whether the fact that I studied history at school, covering the Nazi period where we looked at things like anti Semitic propaganda, and he didn't, might have explained it. To me it is obvious that these graphics, like a lot of Trump iconography, have a fascist flavour to them. Themes like extreme patriotism, violence and dominance, aggression and anger, militarism and authority, all feature strongly. Luckily, Trump doesn't have a political philosophy so isn't really a fascist. He's just a narcissist who knows which buttons to press. Some of his supporters and henchmen are though I think. My guess is that the American Republic will survive Trump but he has certainly awoken something disturbing in US society. None of us should need reminding how dangerous fascism is.
Yes but saying “his t-shirt is a bit like the Nazis” is a childish approach. You’re approach is more valid
I think it pays to be vigilant on all fronts. There are more concrete examples than iconography of course, such as separating children from their parents and putting them in cages. That was the point where I refused to treat Trump as just another politician that I didn't like.
Although it was ok when Obama did it...
That’s a terrible thing to do, for the avoidance of doubt.
I guess the challenge is if your policy is to have holding locations for Processing undocumented aliens how do you ensure the safety of children in those environments.
Edit: I only partially remembered it (checked wiki). The original cases were about prosecuting and imprisoning the parents and then finding an alternative way of looking after the children. In theory reasonable but poorly executed.
"A harbour no more China’s draconian security law for Hong Kong buries one country, two systems The regime in Beijing would rather be feared than admired"
Hong Kong had a very large share of Chinas GDP in 1997, but much less significant now.
Does anyone have figures on how many of the are British Overseas passport holders? And the age range? I would have thought that they would be the older population, while the young protestors are mostly born after 1997.
It'd about half. 3 million or so of Hong Kong's 7 million or so.
You've got to remember there was lots of immigration from the mainland by Chinese proper after 1997.
I actually think that will be popular among the Wildlings of the Blue Wall as it can be handily marketed as obligation of Empire 2.0.
I mean, it's not an aUsTrAlIaN sTyLe PoInTs SyStEm but that was a Johnsonian commitment to be parsed on a symbolic rather than literal level like "I'll pay for the abortion" and the Muir Éireann border.
The Commons voted to end free movement this week and replace it with a points system.
Hong Kong citizens invited here are British Overseas Nationals anyway
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
Thankfully, it is only in Leicester that people have been ignoring the lockdown rules. We are equally lucky that it is only those who do not speak good English that are doing it.
Yet it is Leicester which has a current infection rate three times higher than anywhere else.
And its tolerance of the sweat shop economy has been known about for years.
If it has been known about for years why didn't the government do something about it?
I am glad that it will only be Leicester that we have these problems in.
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
A tip!
You could have started your statement with "I'm not racist but..."
I hope that helps.
Yawn.
Wailing wayccciiissstttt when you can't think of a proper reply.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
Though the last coalition in Germany that stood as a coalition in the election was the 2009 to 2013 CDU and FDP coalition and before that the 2001 to 2005 SDP and Green coalition.
Otherwise the governments have all been CDU and SPD ie the equivalent of Tory and Labour here
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
A tip!
You could have started your statement with "I'm not racist but..."
I hope that helps.
Yawn.
Wailing wayccciiissstttt when you can't think of a proper reply.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
Indeed.
Big_G's original statement was "most legitimate government in recent history"
Yet the 2010-15 coalition could claim to represent a majority of the votes cast in a way that the current government cannot.
The coalition couldn't though. 2010 I voted conservative (for the last time ever as it turned out). However I would not have lent them my vote for the coalition manifesto they hacked out between them and very much said so after coalition was formed.
In my view my vote was stolen and used to claim a mandate they would not have got from me had I known prior to the election.
This is exactly why I abhor PR. Its give us your vote and then we will decide what you voted for and we might throw out all the bits we said we would do that you liked.
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
A tip!
You could have started your statement with "I'm not racist but..."
I hope that helps.
Yawn.
Wailing wayccciiissstttt when you can't think of a proper reply.
When the racial stereotypers come out to play, it is time for work.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
Though the last coalition in Germany that stood as a coalition in the election was the 2009 to 2013 CDU and FDP coalition and before that the 2001 to 2005 SDP and Green coalition.
Otherwise the governments have all been CDU and SPD ie the equivalent of Tory and Labour here
I think technically CDU governments are CDU/CSU coalitions. Because Bavaria.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
To try an analogy:
A party runs in the policy of painting Buckingham Palace blue (and nothing else) and wins 35% of the vote.
Another party wins 20% support for their sole policy of painting it red.
They agree to form a coalition.
@IanB2@PClipp et al argue that it legitimate because they received over 50% of the vote
@Philip_Thompson argues that no one voted for a coalition government with a compromise policy of painting Buckingham Palace purple and therefore it is illegitimate
Pretty childish analogy.
Voters under PR know that it is unlikely that a party will get the majority they need in order to carry out their whole program, and expect policies to shaped according to the policies of the parties that manage to agree a coalition.
And even if a single party does get a majority they know that it's still unlikely to do everything they said they would, and different things will get prioritised. Parties in the UK which do often get majorities in parliament regularly fail to do everything they said they will do - does that make them illegitimate?
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
The only ones whinging here are those who don't like the results. When it was put to a referendum two-thirds of the country chose to keep our voting system.
Just because sore losers whinge doesn't make them right.
The German government is less legitimate than the British government. In Britain quite self-evidently 44% of the country voted for Johnson to be PM and 44% of the country voted for the government we have.
In Germany by contrast 33% of the country voted for Merkel to be Chancellor and 0% of the country voted for the government they have.
The fact that our government was determined on election night while the German government was determined SIX MONTHS after the election shows the farce of claims that electoral system is "more legitimate".
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s. Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
A tip!
You could have started your statement with "I'm not racist but..."
I hope that helps.
Yawn.
Wailing wayccciiissstttt when you can't think of a proper reply.
Maybe that is the proper reply.
I see the PB lefties are very insecure about Labour dominated Leicester being sweat shop city and a public health problem.
Your tolerance of the exploitation of non English speakers in this country is pretty disgusting.
It is a mystery how Johnson hopes to get away with packaging a re-announcement of already promised investment, now spread over eight years rather than five, as anything comparable to the US's New Deal.
Given that new Teesside Tory MPs have promised major new bypasses (for Darlington) and various other £100m schemes that money isn't going to last 2 seconds
Heck I think it's less than the improvements to Middlesbrough's Train Station are supposed to cost.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
To try an analogy:
A party runs in the policy of painting Buckingham Palace blue (and nothing else) and wins 35% of the vote.
Another party wins 20% support for their sole policy of painting it red.
They agree to form a coalition.
@IanB2@PClipp et al argue that it legitimate because they received over 50% of the vote
@Philip_Thompson argues that no one voted for a coalition government with a compromise policy of painting Buckingham Palace purple and therefore it is illegitimate
Aren't they both right?
Ultimately, if they paint it purple they will have betrayed their manifestos. But that would also be true if they'd not painted it at all because of a plague of locusts.
They have been elected, and they will need to face the electorate next time around.
They can’t both be right! You can’t be legitimate and illegitimate at the same time...
Legitimacy is our system comes from the ability to command a majority of the House of Commons. Doesn’t matter which party they sit for.
I'm not the one making the legitimacy argument though I'm mocking those that make it! It was someone else who tried to complain that the UK government was "illegitimate" as it "only got 43%" of the vote (actually it got 44% if we're rounding but lets not nitpick).
A government that commands a majority of the Commons is clearly legitimate in my eyes, but if others wish to ensure a "50% vote threshold" to acquire legitimacy then simply adding up component parties doesn't reach 50% of the vote since they weren't voted for together.
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
A tip!
You could have started your statement with "I'm not racist but..."
I hope that helps.
Yawn.
Wailing wayccciiissstttt when you can't think of a proper reply.
Maybe that is the proper reply.
I see the PB lefties are very insecure about Labour dominated Leicester being sweat shop city and a public health problem.
Your tolerance of the exploitation of non English speakers in this country is pretty disgusting.
You blame the exploited. I blame the exploiter. That is the difference. The government has cut HSE funding so making it much harder to undertake meaningful inspections, while the right generally loathes the trade unionsim that would kill sweat shops stone dead. That is the reality.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
To try an analogy:
A party runs in the policy of painting Buckingham Palace blue (and nothing else) and wins 35% of the vote.
Another party wins 20% support for their sole policy of painting it red.
They agree to form a coalition.
@IanB2@PClipp et al argue that it legitimate because they received over 50% of the vote
@Philip_Thompson argues that no one voted for a coalition government with a compromise policy of painting Buckingham Palace purple and therefore it is illegitimate
Pretty childish analogy.
Voters under PR know that it is unlikely that a party will get the majority they need in order to carry out their whole program, and expect policies to shaped according to the policies of the parties that manage to agree a coalition.
And even if a single party does get a majority they know that it's still unlikely to do everything they said they would, and different things will get prioritised. Parties in the UK which do often get majorities in parliament regularly fail to do everything they said they will do - does that make them illegitimate?
Of course under PR voters adapt. But we don’t have PR which is why that argument falls done. People vote for a programme and get something that is a compromise they didn’t vote for.
Your second point is about a government not delivering on its promises which is something different and they need to justify to their voters at the next election
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
The only ones whinging here are those who don't like the results. When it was put to a referendum two-thirds of the country chose to keep our voting system.
Just because sore losers whinge doesn't make them right.
The German government is less legitimate than the British government. In Britain quite self-evidently 44% of the country voted for Johnson to be PM and 44% of the country voted for the government we have.
In Germany by contrast 33% of the country voted for Merkel to be Chancellor and 0% of the country voted for the government they have.
The fact that our government was determined on election night while the German government was determined SIX MONTHS after the election shows the farce of claims that electoral system is "more legitimate".
It is absurd that you think the German government is less legitimate than the British government, you are just making a total fool of yourself now. Sometimes it's good to get an international perspective on things.
And there has not been a referendum offering PR in Britain, so that is also totally irrelevant.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
To try an analogy:
A party runs in the policy of painting Buckingham Palace blue (and nothing else) and wins 35% of the vote.
Another party wins 20% support for their sole policy of painting it red.
They agree to form a coalition.
@IanB2@PClipp et al argue that it legitimate because they received over 50% of the vote
@Philip_Thompson argues that no one voted for a coalition government with a compromise policy of painting Buckingham Palace purple and therefore it is illegitimate
Aren't they both right?
Ultimately, if they paint it purple they will have betrayed their manifestos. But that would also be true if they'd not painted it at all because of a plague of locusts.
They have been elected, and they will need to face the electorate next time around.
They can’t both be right! You can’t be legitimate and illegitimate at the same time...
Legitimacy is our system comes from the ability to command a majority of the House of Commons. Doesn’t matter which party they sit for.
I'm not the one making the legitimacy argument though I'm mocking those that make it! It was someone else who tried to complain that the UK government was "illegitimate" as it "only got 43%" of the vote (actually it got 44% if we're rounding but lets not nitpick).
A government that commands a majority of the Commons is clearly legitimate in my eyes, but if others wish to ensure a "50% vote threshold" to acquire legitimacy then simply adding up component parties doesn't reach 50% of the vote since they weren't voted for together.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
Though the last coalition in Germany that stood as a coalition in the election was the 2009 to 2013 CDU and FDP coalition and before that the 2001 to 2005 SDP and Green coalition.
Otherwise the governments have all been CDU and SPD ie the equivalent of Tory and Labour here
I think technically CDU governments are CDU/CSU coalitions. Because Bavaria.
Which does not change the point e.g. Stoiber was CSU leader in 2001 and stood on a coalition with the CDU and FDP
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
The only ones whinging here are those who don't like the results. When it was put to a referendum two-thirds of the country chose to keep our voting system.
Just because sore losers whinge doesn't make them right.
The German government is less legitimate than the British government. In Britain quite self-evidently 44% of the country voted for Johnson to be PM and 44% of the country voted for the government we have.
In Germany by contrast 33% of the country voted for Merkel to be Chancellor and 0% of the country voted for the government they have.
The fact that our government was determined on election night while the German government was determined SIX MONTHS after the election shows the farce of claims that electoral system is "more legitimate".
This is absolutely right. With PR the only ones who win are the politicians. No one can know what the final Government make up will be so no one can say they got the Government they voted for.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
Though the last coalition in Germany that stood as a coalition in the election was the 2009 to 2013 CDU and FDP coalition and before that the 2001 to 2005 SDP and Green coalition.
Otherwise the governments have all been CDU and SPD ie the equivalent of Tory and Labour here
I think technically CDU governments are CDU/CSU coalitions. Because Bavaria.
Which does not change the point e.g. Stoiber was CSU leader in 2001 and stood on a coalition with the CDU and FDP
it means that you were wrong about “all the other governments” not being coalitions
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
The only ones whinging here are those who don't like the results. When it was put to a referendum two-thirds of the country chose to keep our voting system.
Just because sore losers whinge doesn't make them right.
The German government is less legitimate than the British government. In Britain quite self-evidently 44% of the country voted for Johnson to be PM and 44% of the country voted for the government we have.
In Germany by contrast 33% of the country voted for Merkel to be Chancellor and 0% of the country voted for the government they have.
The fact that our government was determined on election night while the German government was determined SIX MONTHS after the election shows the farce of claims that electoral system is "more legitimate".
No, 33% of people in Germany voted for Merkel's party to be in government in the knowledge that it would not happen without a coalition being formed. All other Germans made their electoral choices knowing that a single party could not win power. They specifically were not asked to vote for a leader. If they had been, all the polling suggests that Merkel would have won well over 50% of the votes.
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s. Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
Though the last coalition in Germany that stood as a coalition in the election was the 2009 to 2013 CDU and FDP coalition and before that the 2001 to 2005 SDP and Green coalition.
Otherwise the governments have all been CDU and SPD ie the equivalent of Tory and Labour here
I think technically CDU governments are CDU/CSU coalitions. Because Bavaria.
Which does not change the point e.g. Stoiber was CSU leader in 2001 and stood on a coalition with the CDU and FDP
it means that you were wrong about “all the other governments” not being coalitions
I was not wrong at all, I said all the other governments since have been CDU and SPD not that they have not been coalitions.
Indeed since 2013 all German governments have basically been the equivalent of having Boris as PM and Starmer as Deputy PM after the next UK general election
The fascist iconography of Trumpism is hiding in plain sight. If Trump were smarter he would really be dangerous.
I don't see it. The eagle is a symbol of America left, right or centre.
That fascists have used it doesn't change that. Trump is a racist who deserves to lose, but there's stronger connections than he uses an eagle in his artwork to say that.
But the same eagle, posed in the same way, sitting atop a circular shield carrying the national logo? Has that same imagery been used before Trump?
The same eagle: 100% definitely yes. The bald eagle has been the symbol of the USA since 1782.
Posed in the same way - probably its a pretty standard way to draw the eagle.
Sitting atop a circular shield carrying the national logo - Only one of those examples uses the national flag in the shield and it isn't the fascist one. Yes American imagery using the American flag is standard.
Has that same imagery been used before Trump? Yes. The bald eagle, the US flag, all standard images of the USA.
There's enough things to demonstrate that Trump is a racist without trying to link standard symbols of America dating consistently back to the 18th century as that. Heck the seal of the US Congress is pretty similar!
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
The only ones whinging here are those who don't like the results. When it was put to a referendum two-thirds of the country chose to keep our voting system.
Just because sore losers whinge doesn't make them right.
The German government is less legitimate than the British government. In Britain quite self-evidently 44% of the country voted for Johnson to be PM and 44% of the country voted for the government we have.
In Germany by contrast 33% of the country voted for Merkel to be Chancellor and 0% of the country voted for the government they have.
The fact that our government was determined on election night while the German government was determined SIX MONTHS after the election shows the farce of claims that electoral system is "more legitimate".
This is absolutely right. With PR the only ones who win are the politicians. No one can know what the final Government make up will be so no one can say they got the Government they voted for.
And yet surveys show that far more people in Germany are happy with the way democracy works in their country than in the UK.
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s. Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
No it hasn't.
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
So what. It has not been in any kind of common usage until a few months ago.
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s. Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
No it hasn't.
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
So what. It has not been in any kind of common usage until a few months ago.
The amount of effort you are putting into not learning what it means, you could have learned what it means by now.
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
A tip!
You could have started your statement with "I'm not racist but..."
I hope that helps.
Yawn.
Wailing wayccciiissstttt when you can't think of a proper reply.
Maybe that is the proper reply.
I see the PB lefties are very insecure about Labour dominated Leicester being sweat shop city and a public health problem.
Your tolerance of the exploitation of non English speakers in this country is pretty disgusting.
You blame the exploited. I blame the exploiter. That is the difference. The government has cut HSE funding so making it much harder to undertake meaningful inspections, while the right generally loathes the trade unionsim that would kill sweat shops stone dead. That is the reality.
Its tolerated by government at both national and local level and has been for many years.
We all know that.
But some want to turn off the tap of people to exploit by controlling migration while others are happy for it to continue.
And those people willing to tolerate such exploitation are easy to spot - they shout 'racist' at anyone who points out inconvenient facts or they babble about 'community relations' or 'cultural differences'.
LOL turns out that the Trump image used of the bald eagle is not only so standard, its so common it is a royalty-free stock image you can download.
So they've just been so lazy they've not even bothered to create their own image, they've used a stock image and slapped on the words AMERICA FIRST and TRUMP 2020 onto it.
I cannot see all that many in Hong Kong taking up the offer of pathway to citizenship. People adapt to new circumstances pretty quickly or, the opposite approach, dont want to give up, so great move as it is I feel like we wint get vast numbers. The chinese state has won.
LOL turns out that the Trump image used of the bald eagle is not only so standard, its so common it is a royalty-free stock image you can download.
So they've just been so lazy they've not even bothered to create their own image, they've used a stock image and slapped on the words AMERICA FIRST and TRUMP 2020 onto it.
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
A tip!
You could have started your statement with "I'm not racist but..."
I hope that helps.
Yawn.
Wailing wayccciiissstttt when you can't think of a proper reply.
Maybe that is the proper reply.
I see the PB lefties are very insecure about Labour dominated Leicester being sweat shop city and a public health problem.
Your tolerance of the exploitation of non English speakers in this country is pretty disgusting.
You blame the exploited. I blame the exploiter. That is the difference. The government has cut HSE funding so making it much harder to undertake meaningful inspections, while the right generally loathes the trade unionsim that would kill sweat shops stone dead. That is the reality.
Leicester has been a centre of the rag trade for a couple of centuries, particularly hosiery. The businesses are small and agile, and have had some revival over recent years. There is some specialist work, but a particular success is the "fast fashion" trade. This beats competition on turnaround, often just weeks from design to shop floor. From the Far East it takes a couple of months.
These are agile businesses, and can be unscrupulous exploitative ones. Think of them as onshoring manufacturing in a deregulated environment if you want to take a Tory or Libertarian perspective, just don't blame the exploited workers.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Oh come on, I support a PR system but that doesnt make FPTP illegitimate.
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
A tip!
You could have started your statement with "I'm not racist but..."
I hope that helps.
Yawn.
Wailing wayccciiissstttt when you can't think of a proper reply.
Maybe that is the proper reply.
I see the PB lefties are very insecure about Labour dominated Leicester being sweat shop city and a public health problem.
Your tolerance of the exploitation of non English speakers in this country is pretty disgusting.
You blame the exploited. I blame the exploiter. That is the difference. The government has cut HSE funding so making it much harder to undertake meaningful inspections, while the right generally loathes the trade unionsim that would kill sweat shops stone dead. That is the reality.
Its tolerated by government at both national and local level and has been for many years.
We all know that.
But some want to turn off the tap of people to exploit by controlling migration while others are happy for it to continue.
And those people willing to tolerate such exploitation are easy to spot - they shout 'racist' at anyone who points out inconvenient facts or they babble about 'community relations' or 'cultural differences'.
You blame the exploited, I don't. People are exploited because the government enables it by underfunding the HSE and refusing to allow strong trade unions. Sweat shops are illegal. It is naive to believe that people who run sweat shops will not continue to break immigraiton laws if you make it harder for people to live legally in the UK.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
To try an analogy:
A party runs in the policy of painting Buckingham Palace blue (and nothing else) and wins 35% of the vote.
Another party wins 20% support for their sole policy of painting it red.
They agree to form a coalition.
@IanB2@PClipp et al argue that it legitimate because they received over 50% of the vote
@Philip_Thompson argues that no one voted for a coalition government with a compromise policy of painting Buckingham Palace purple and therefore it is illegitimate
Aren't they both right?
Ultimately, if they paint it purple they will have betrayed their manifestos. But that would also be true if they'd not painted it at all because of a plague of locusts.
They have been elected, and they will need to face the electorate next time around.
They can’t both be right! You can’t be legitimate and illegitimate at the same time...
Legitimacy is our system comes from the ability to command a majority of the House of Commons. Doesn’t matter which party they sit for.
Your argument appears to be that the system is by definition legitimate, and therefore by extension that any other system would be so. Which is obviously nonsense.
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s. Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
Surely the point though is the term is being thrown around liberally far beyond its original meaning?
F1: backed Norris to beat Sainz in the qualifying matchbet (evens or just over with boost) market. He was impressive in qualifying last year.
One thought on F1 bets for this weekend. Double check with your bookie that they pay out on the result t the time of the podium ceremony. There’s likely to be a lot of protests around technical regulations, there may not be a final result to the first race for weeks!
Lol, I'm enjoying Leicester being treated like a leper colony. Deserved as well. I've got distant family there and they definitely weren't taking the social distancing seriously, one of them posted a gathering of around 60-70 people in a small house on Instagram. I have no doubt that loads of people will have been infected there.
The 'excuse' being used that many people in Leicester don't understand the English language isn't going to get them much sympathy either.
A tip!
You could have started your statement with "I'm not racist but..."
I hope that helps.
Yawn.
Wailing wayccciiissstttt when you can't think of a proper reply.
Maybe that is the proper reply.
I see the PB lefties are very insecure about Labour dominated Leicester being sweat shop city and a public health problem.
Your tolerance of the exploitation of non English speakers in this country is pretty disgusting.
You blame the exploited. I blame the exploiter. That is the difference. The government has cut HSE funding so making it much harder to undertake meaningful inspections, while the right generally loathes the trade unionsim that would kill sweat shops stone dead. That is the reality.
Its tolerated by government at both national and local level and has been for many years.
We all know that.
But some want to turn off the tap of people to exploit by controlling migration while others are happy for it to continue.
And those people willing to tolerate such exploitation are easy to spot - they shout 'racist' at anyone who points out inconvenient facts or they babble about 'community relations' or 'cultural differences'.
Perhaps the Hong Kong textile workers will be welcome in the factories.
The Leicester rag trade is based on immigrants from India and East Africa in the Seventies, not recent migration in the main, and rarely European.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
The only ones whinging here are those who don't like the results. When it was put to a referendum two-thirds of the country chose to keep our voting system.
Just because sore losers whinge doesn't make them right.
The German government is less legitimate than the British government. In Britain quite self-evidently 44% of the country voted for Johnson to be PM and 44% of the country voted for the government we have.
In Germany by contrast 33% of the country voted for Merkel to be Chancellor and 0% of the country voted for the government they have.
The fact that our government was determined on election night while the German government was determined SIX MONTHS after the election shows the farce of claims that electoral system is "more legitimate".
This is absolutely right. With PR the only ones who win are the politicians. No one can know what the final Government make up will be so no one can say they got the Government they voted for.
If there were any truth in that, there would be a lot more politicians angling for PR!
That our politicians remain so keen on our current system, where most of them have jobs for life mostly immune from electoral pressure, tells us all we need to know.
I cannot see all that many in Hong Kong taking up the offer of pathway to citizenship. People adapt to new circumstances pretty quickly or, the opposite approach, dont want to give up, so great move as it is I feel like we wint get vast numbers. The chinese state has won.
That’s up to the people of Hong Kong. The British government has upheld their end of the 1997 agreement in making their offer, and is leading international pressure on China. Short of rolling tanks into HK, there isn’t much more we can do.
I cannot see all that many in Hong Kong taking up the offer of pathway to citizenship. People adapt to new circumstances pretty quickly or, the opposite approach, dont want to give up, so great move as it is I feel like we wint get vast numbers. The chinese state has won.
That’s up to the people of Hong Kong. The British government has upheld their end of the 1997 agreement in making their offer, and is leading international pressure on China. Short of rolling tanks into HK, there isn’t much more we can do.
The bounties were allegedly to kill coalition -- including British -- troops. What's our new National Security Adviser said about it? Or the old one? And when will Boris publish the report into Russian interference in our politics?
If the Conservatives were clean, they would publish it. They haven´t, so they aren´t. The Johnson government is not legitimate.
You may not like this government, you may want to attack it, but it is the most legitimate government in recent history after winning an 80 seat majority just 8 months ago
Err, with only a minority (43%) of the vote and with more people voting for parties opposing its principal Brexit policy than voted for it.
Name one party opposing Brexit that you think should be the government?
The government won millions of votes more than any other party. You can't sum up all other parties votes and add them together that's not legitimate, if the other parties voters all wanted the same thing they'd have all voted for the same party. They chose not to do so.
Whilst what you say is obviously true, and of course the govt should be in power, there are different levels of legitimacy. If it had won over half the vote that would have made it more legitimate even if thats a extremely harsh bar to set given our political system. Similarly if they paid more respect to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution they would be more legitimate. Of course they are the most legitimate available because they won the election but their actions and behaviour undermine that.
Can you name any western countries in your definition which are legitimate with your phrasing?
And no coalitions don't count unless they were a defined coalition standing in the election united (like the Coalition in Australia) since the public did not vote for them.
"coalitions don't count" is just something you made up because you seem to like the not so democratic UK system.
I didn't make it up, coalitions did not get voted for at the election unless they were a defined coalition at the election.
If the desire is to get the mandate of 50% plus of votes at the election then you need 50% plus of votes at the election. The coalitions only got 50% plus at the election if they stood at the election.
As I said, something you just made up.
Here in Germany there is a legitimate elected coalition government. The proportion of people complaining about the voting system here is tiny compared to the UK. Once you've persuaded some Germans that their government is less legitimate than the UK's I'll start listening to your nonsense.
To try an analogy:
A party runs in the policy of painting Buckingham Palace blue (and nothing else) and wins 35% of the vote.
Another party wins 20% support for their sole policy of painting it red.
They agree to form a coalition.
@IanB2@PClipp et al argue that it legitimate because they received over 50% of the vote
@Philip_Thompson argues that no one voted for a coalition government with a compromise policy of painting Buckingham Palace purple and therefore it is illegitimate
Aren't they both right?
Ultimately, if they paint it purple they will have betrayed their manifestos. But that would also be true if they'd not painted it at all because of a plague of locusts.
They have been elected, and they will need to face the electorate next time around.
Or if they had "to paint it as red as possible" and "to paint it as blue as possible" and make a coalition and paint large quantities red and a lot of it blue to make a nice two-tone effect, then they'd have provided as much as possible for their voters and would face the electorate on those grounds.
"A harbour no more China’s draconian security law for Hong Kong buries one country, two systems The regime in Beijing would rather be feared than admired"
Hong Kong had a very large share of Chinas GDP in 1997, but much less significant now.
Does anyone have figures on how many of the are British Overseas passport holders? And the age range? I would have thought that they would be the older population, while the young protestors are mostly born after 1997.
It'd about half. 3 million or so of Hong Kong's 7 million or so.
You've got to remember there was lots of immigration from the mainland by Chinese proper after 1997.
I actually think that will be popular among the Wildlings of the Blue Wall as it can be handily marketed as obligation of Empire 2.0.
I mean, it's not an aUsTrAlIaN sTyLe PoInTs SyStEm but that was a Johnsonian commitment to be parsed on a symbolic rather than literal level like "I'll pay for the abortion" and the Muir Éireann border.
The Commons voted to end free movement this week and replace it with a points system.
Hong Kong citizens invited here are British Overseas Nationals anyway
I cannot see all that many in Hong Kong taking up the offer of pathway to citizenship. People adapt to new circumstances pretty quickly or, the opposite approach, dont want to give up, so great move as it is I feel like we wint get vast numbers. The chinese state has won.
That’s up to the people of Hong Kong. The British government has upheld their end of the 1997 agreement in making their offer, and is leading international pressure on China. Short of rolling tanks into HK, there isn’t much more we can do.
I know, and I'm not even saying a mass exodus should be what they want to do - its their home after all - just that fears of millions of refugees is likely misplaced.
That The Chinese government have won is really a broader point than whether people now flee it. One of the most odious regimes on earth, partly because the seem to be so successful
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s. Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
No it hasn't.
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
So what. It has not been in any kind of common usage until a few months ago.
The term gaslighting has been around for years, certainly before the accession of Trump.
"A harbour no more China’s draconian security law for Hong Kong buries one country, two systems The regime in Beijing would rather be feared than admired"
Hong Kong had a very large share of Chinas GDP in 1997, but much less significant now.
Does anyone have figures on how many of the are British Overseas passport holders? And the age range? I would have thought that they would be the older population, while the young protestors are mostly born after 1997.
It'd about half. 3 million or so of Hong Kong's 7 million or so.
You've got to remember there was lots of immigration from the mainland by Chinese proper after 1997.
I actually think that will be popular among the Wildlings of the Blue Wall as it can be handily marketed as obligation of Empire 2.0.
I mean, it's not an aUsTrAlIaN sTyLe PoInTs SyStEm but that was a Johnsonian commitment to be parsed on a symbolic rather than literal level like "I'll pay for the abortion" and the Muir Éireann border.
The Commons voted to end free movement this week and replace it with a points system.
Hong Kong citizens invited here are British Overseas Nationals anyway
Where are they all flocking from?
Honk Kong, they're British Overseas Nationals.
Oh well, that's ok then,
The polling shows Leavers as well as Remainers are OK with them coming here
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s. Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
No it hasn't.
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
So what. It has not been in any kind of common usage until a few months ago.
The term gaslighting has been around for years, certainly before the accession of Trump.
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s. Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
Surely the point though is the term is being thrown around liberally far beyond its original meaning?
I don't think it's being used that far from its original meaning. It means when someone tries to make you disbelieve your own sanity by lying to you in order to exercise control over you. I think it can be applied to the behaviour of governments and politicians quite readily. Lots of psychology terms have found their way into popular usage, and some have drafted far further from their original meaning in the process (e.g. schizophrenic).
"A harbour no more China’s draconian security law for Hong Kong buries one country, two systems The regime in Beijing would rather be feared than admired"
Hong Kong had a very large share of Chinas GDP in 1997, but much less significant now.
Does anyone have figures on how many of the are British Overseas passport holders? And the age range? I would have thought that they would be the older population, while the young protestors are mostly born after 1997.
It'd about half. 3 million or so of Hong Kong's 7 million or so.
You've got to remember there was lots of immigration from the mainland by Chinese proper after 1997.
I actually think that will be popular among the Wildlings of the Blue Wall as it can be handily marketed as obligation of Empire 2.0.
I mean, it's not an aUsTrAlIaN sTyLe PoInTs SyStEm but that was a Johnsonian commitment to be parsed on a symbolic rather than literal level like "I'll pay for the abortion" and the Muir Éireann border.
The Commons voted to end free movement this week and replace it with a points system.
Hong Kong citizens invited here are British Overseas Nationals anyway
Where are they all flocking from?
Honk Kong, they're British Overseas Nationals.
Oh well, that's ok then,
The polling shows Leavers as well as Remainers are OK with them coming here
Overall voters back Hong Kong citizens being invited here by 64% to 22%
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s. Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
No it hasn't.
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
So what. It has not been in any kind of common usage until a few months ago.
The term gaslighting has been around for years, certainly before the accession of Trump.
The fascist iconography of Trumpism is hiding in plain sight. If Trump were smarter he would really be dangerous.
I don't see it. The eagle is a symbol of America left, right or centre.
That fascists have used it doesn't change that. Trump is a racist who deserves to lose, but there's stronger connections than he uses an eagle in his artwork to say that.
There's always a degree of subjectivity with images. It's a bit like the famous mural. It was quite clearly anti-Semitic to me (although possibly subconsciously on the part of the artist, I don't know). But an old friend of mine really couldn't see it, he said these are just likenesses of real historical figures, not all of them are Jewish, etc etc. I wondered whether the fact that I studied history at school, covering the Nazi period where we looked at things like anti Semitic propaganda, and he didn't, might have explained it. To me it is obvious that these graphics, like a lot of Trump iconography, have a fascist flavour to them. Themes like extreme patriotism, violence and dominance, aggression and anger, militarism and authority, all feature strongly. Luckily, Trump doesn't have a political philosophy so isn't really a fascist. He's just a narcissist who knows which buttons to press. Some of his supporters and henchmen are though I think. My guess is that the American Republic will survive Trump but he has certainly awoken something disturbing in US society. None of us should need reminding how dangerous fascism is.
On the eternal legitimacy/PR/FPTP discussion - we're never going to come to an agreement because both sides are arguing from different axioms, which seem incontrovertibly true to each of them.
It all comes down to what you think “democracy” should be or should mean. It’s simply “The rule by the people” – which is a concept that admits of broad interpretation. These tend to fall down into two types, though, which lead to the Consensual or Adversarial outcomes.
- If you follow the “adversarial” philosophy (majoritarian), the largest single group should get what they want – exact and complete. If they are the majority, all well and good. If they are merely the largest minority, then a majority can be artificially created, because whomever “wins” should get all of what they wanted, exact and complete, while those who “lose” should get nothing (there are even cases in majoritarian system when the largest plurality “loses” to a smaller plurality, who then get everything at the cost of the larger group). It concentrates power in one group. It is exclusive, competitive, and adversarial. They tend to lead to “with us or against us” and two tribes (fewer effective parties, fewer genuine choices for the voter and less representation of a full suite of public opinion.). They claim better Government effectiveness, at least in achieving their agendas without compromise. They tend to be associated with lower turnouts than proportional systems.
- If you follow the “consensual” philosophy (proportional), as many people as possible should get as much of what they want – with compromises. It aims at broad participation in government and broad agreement on policies. It shares and disperses power among multiple groups. It is inclusive, compromising, and consensual. (More parties, wider choice, and wider representation of public opinion). Greater satisfaction with their governments is reported among consensus systems and is supported by multiple studies. Surprisingly, proportional electoral systems appear to enhance perceived accountability. However, there is possibly slower policy responsiveness between elections due to the need to consult and co-ordinate among partners. Proportional and consensus systems also tend to have greater representation of women and minorities.
Majoritarian models include FPTP, AV, and Second Ballot systems. Consensus models include the various forms of proportional representation (STV, AMS/MMP, Open and Closed List systems).
One significant difference is in the friction-to-decision process if the public is genuinely split widely in outlook. In a majoritarian system, a comparatively small plurality can simply take control and impose the “winning” policy stance on all regardless of how unrepresentative it may be. In a proportional system, it can lead to executive gridlock and paralysis. It is arguable as to which of these outcomes is worse; it is inarguable that neither is desirable.
This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.
It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.
OH NO!
"gaslighting"
Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.
A neologism too far.
Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s. Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
No it hasn't.
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
So what. It has not been in any kind of common usage until a few months ago.
The term gaslighting has been around for years, certainly before the accession of Trump.
"In the vernacular, the phrase “to gaslight” refers to the act of undermining another person’s reality by denying facts, the environment around them, or their feelings. "
The problem, in its modern use, is that last clause.
If you point out facts or data, that the 'gaslightee' does not want to accept, then you are gaslighting them.
This what people are saying when they use it on social media. You're disagreeing with their feelings.
It is a mystery how Johnson hopes to get away with packaging a re-announcement of already promised investment, now spread over eight years rather than five, as anything comparable to the US's New Deal.
The government has a very low opinion of the British people. You can tell that by the ease with which it lies to us. It believes it can say and do anything, without consequence. Once it has finished with the judiciary, the civil service and the emasculaiotn of Parliament that may well be the case.
I don’t think it’s totally out of the question that Johnson (having no head for numbers whatsoever) actually thinks what he is announcing is impressive. It’s the Treasury that have probably produced the figures in the expectation that he wouldn’t understand them.
On the eternal legitimacy/PR/FPTP discussion - we're never going to come to an agreement because both sides are arguing from different axioms, which seem incontrovertibly true to each of them.
It all comes down to what you think “democracy” should be or should mean. It’s simply “The rule by the people” – which is a concept that admits of broad interpretation. These tend to fall down into two types, though, which lead to the Consensual or Adversarial outcomes.
- If you follow the “adversarial” philosophy (majoritarian), the largest single group should get what they want – exact and complete. If they are the majority, all well and good. If they are merely the largest minority, then a majority can be artificially created, because whomever “wins” should get all of what they wanted, exact and complete, while those who “lose” should get nothing (there are even cases in majoritarian system when the largest plurality “loses” to a smaller plurality, who then get everything at the cost of the larger group). It concentrates power in one group. It is exclusive, competitive, and adversarial. They tend to lead to “with us or against us” and two tribes (fewer effective parties, fewer genuine choices for the voter and less representation of a full suite of public opinion.). They claim better Government effectiveness, at least in achieving their agendas without compromise. They tend to be associated with lower turnouts than proportional systems.
- If you follow the “consensual” philosophy (proportional), as many people as possible should get as much of what they want – with compromises. It aims at broad participation in government and broad agreement on policies. It shares and disperses power among multiple groups. It is inclusive, compromising, and consensual. (More parties, wider choice, and wider representation of public opinion). Greater satisfaction with their governments is reported among consensus systems and is supported by multiple studies. Surprisingly, proportional electoral systems appear to enhance perceived accountability. However, there is possibly slower policy responsiveness between elections due to the need to consult and co-ordinate among partners. Proportional and consensus systems also tend to have greater representation of women and minorities.
Majoritarian models include FPTP, AV, and Second Ballot systems. Consensus models include the various forms of proportional representation (STV, AMS/MMP, Open and Closed List systems).
One significant difference is in the friction-to-decision process if the public is genuinely split widely in outlook. In a majoritarian system, a comparatively small plurality can simply take control and impose the “winning” policy stance on all regardless of how unrepresentative it may be. In a proportional system, it can lead to executive gridlock and paralysis. It is arguable as to which of these outcomes is worse; it is inarguable that neither is desirable.
I would say there is a further difference over what the purpose of elections is? Is it a (to some extent backward looking) judgement on the Government of the day, or is it a forward looking choice between competing visions of the future? If the former then the most important function of the electoral system is that it allows the electorate to remove the Government. If the latter then there is far more importance in the system being able to demonstrate that the elected govt (and their policies) command high levels of support.
Comments
As I said at the beginning, the object is to place restrictions on people coming from the Americas, without having overtly to say so.
Starmer dealt with this very cleverly. His first question was, that building programme is a bit small isn't it? And then turned his questions to the virus where the government is on the back foot. By the time Johnson trotted out his soundbite, it sounded more like an excuse than a boast.
I agree it wasn't a slam dunk for Starmer. Johnson has more energy than he has had for a while. It was by no means the car crash of his early PMQs. But each time he goes through this he loses just a little more credibility. I don't know if Starmer will keep this going for four years until the next planned election. It sort of feels like a cat playing with a mouse right now.
Ultimately, if they paint it purple they will have betrayed their manifestos. But that would also be true if they'd not painted it at all because of a plague of locusts.
They have been elected, and they will need to face the electorate next time around.
Often works.
But you are right that the whole approach is an attempt to avoid upsetting the notoriously thin skinned US President.
I’d argue that @IanB2 is wrong and that @Philip_Thompson is talking nonsense.
Legitimacy is our system comes from the ability to command a majority of the House of Commons. Doesn’t matter which party they sit for.
F1: backed Norris to beat Sainz in the qualifying matchbet (evens or just over with boost) market. He was impressive in qualifying last year.
Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!
You could have started your statement with "I'm not racist but..."
I hope that helps.
And its tolerance of the sweat shop economy has been known about for years.
That’s a terrible thing to do, for the avoidance of doubt.
I guess the challenge is if your policy is to have holding locations for Processing undocumented aliens how do you ensure the safety of children in those environments.
Edit: I only partially remembered it (checked wiki). The original cases were about prosecuting and imprisoning the parents and then finding an alternative way of looking after the children. In theory reasonable but poorly executed.
Hong Kong citizens invited here are British Overseas Nationals anyway
I am glad that it will only be Leicester that we have these problems in.
Wailing wayccciiissstttt when you can't think of a proper reply.
Otherwise the governments have all been CDU and SPD ie the equivalent of Tory and Labour here
In my view my vote was stolen and used to claim a mandate they would not have got from me had I known prior to the election.
This is exactly why I abhor PR. Its give us your vote and then we will decide what you voted for and we might throw out all the bits we said we would do that you liked.
Good morning.
Voters under PR know that it is unlikely that a party will get the majority they need in order to carry out their whole program, and expect policies to shaped according to the policies of the parties that manage to agree a coalition.
And even if a single party does get a majority they know that it's still unlikely to do everything they said they would, and different things will get prioritised. Parties in the UK which do often get majorities in parliament regularly fail to do everything they said they will do - does that make them illegitimate?
Just because sore losers whinge doesn't make them right.
The German government is less legitimate than the British government. In Britain quite self-evidently 44% of the country voted for Johnson to be PM and 44% of the country voted for the government we have.
In Germany by contrast 33% of the country voted for Merkel to be Chancellor and 0% of the country voted for the government they have.
The fact that our government was determined on election night while the German government was determined SIX MONTHS after the election shows the farce of claims that electoral system is "more legitimate".
Your tolerance of the exploitation of non English speakers in this country is pretty disgusting.
Heck I think it's less than the improvements to Middlesbrough's Train Station are supposed to cost.
A government that commands a majority of the Commons is clearly legitimate in my eyes, but if others wish to ensure a "50% vote threshold" to acquire legitimacy then simply adding up component parties doesn't reach 50% of the vote since they weren't voted for together.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-53259656
Your second point is about a government not delivering on its promises which is something different and they need to justify to their voters at the next election
And there has not been a referendum offering PR in Britain, so that is also totally irrelevant.
facemasks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53258792
Indeed since 2013 all German governments have basically been the equivalent of having Boris as PM and Starmer as Deputy PM after the next UK general election
Posed in the same way - probably its a pretty standard way to draw the eagle.
Sitting atop a circular shield carrying the national logo - Only one of those examples uses the national flag in the shield and it isn't the fascist one. Yes American imagery using the American flag is standard.
Has that same imagery been used before Trump? Yes. The bald eagle, the US flag, all standard images of the USA.
There's enough things to demonstrate that Trump is a racist without trying to link standard symbols of America dating consistently back to the 18th century as that. Heck the seal of the US Congress is pretty similar!
We all know that.
But some want to turn off the tap of people to exploit by controlling migration while others are happy for it to continue.
And those people willing to tolerate such exploitation are easy to spot - they shout 'racist' at anyone who points out inconvenient facts or they babble about 'community relations' or 'cultural differences'.
So they've just been so lazy they've not even bothered to create their own image, they've used a stock image and slapped on the words AMERICA FIRST and TRUMP 2020 onto it.
Here's the original of the stock image: https://www.alamy.com/emblems-with-eagles-and-usa-flags-design-element-for-poster-emblem-sign-logo-label-vector-illustration-image327588877.html
These are agile businesses, and can be unscrupulous exploitative ones. Think of them as onshoring manufacturing in a deregulated environment if you want to take a Tory or Libertarian perspective, just don't blame the exploited workers.
What should BJ do? Sack him?
The Leicester rag trade is based on immigrants from India and East Africa in the Seventies, not recent migration in the main, and rarely European.
That our politicians remain so keen on our current system, where most of them have jobs for life mostly immune from electoral pressure, tells us all we need to know.
Might fly in the rest of the country, no chance in London
LOL
Honk Kong, they're British Overseas Nationals.
Oh well, that's ok then,
That The Chinese government have won is really a broader point than whether people now flee it. One of the most odious regimes on earth, partly because the seem to be so successful
This from "an explanation".
"If a wife tells her husband that he is shirking child care responsibilities and he responds by refusing to acknowledge that it’s even happening, he is gaslighting her."
WTAF?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/01/support-helping-british-passport-holders-hong-kong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
So it is not simply the iconography.
It all comes down to what you think “democracy” should be or should mean. It’s simply “The rule by the people” – which is a concept that admits of broad interpretation. These tend to fall down into two types, though, which lead to the Consensual or Adversarial outcomes.
- If you follow the “adversarial” philosophy (majoritarian), the largest single group should get what they want – exact and complete. If they are the majority, all well and good. If they are merely the largest minority, then a majority can be artificially created, because whomever “wins” should get all of what they wanted, exact and complete, while those who “lose” should get nothing (there are even cases in majoritarian system when the largest plurality “loses” to a smaller plurality, who then get everything at the cost of the larger group). It concentrates power in one group. It is exclusive, competitive, and adversarial. They tend to lead to “with us or against us” and two tribes (fewer effective parties, fewer genuine choices for the voter and less representation of a full suite of public opinion.). They claim better Government effectiveness, at least in achieving their agendas without compromise. They tend to be associated with lower turnouts than proportional systems.
- If you follow the “consensual” philosophy (proportional), as many people as possible should get as much of what they want – with compromises. It aims at broad participation in government and broad agreement on policies. It shares and disperses power among multiple groups. It is inclusive, compromising, and consensual. (More parties, wider choice, and wider representation of public opinion). Greater satisfaction with their governments is reported among consensus systems and is supported by multiple studies. Surprisingly, proportional electoral systems appear to enhance perceived accountability. However, there is possibly slower policy responsiveness between elections due to the need to consult and co-ordinate among partners. Proportional and consensus systems also tend to have greater representation of women and minorities.
Majoritarian models include FPTP, AV, and Second Ballot systems.
Consensus models include the various forms of proportional representation (STV, AMS/MMP, Open and Closed List systems).
One significant difference is in the friction-to-decision process if the public is genuinely split widely in outlook. In a majoritarian system, a comparatively small plurality can simply take control and impose the “winning” policy stance on all regardless of how unrepresentative it may be. In a proportional system, it can lead to executive gridlock and paralysis. It is arguable as to which of these outcomes is worse; it is inarguable that neither is desirable.
The problem, in its modern use, is that last clause.
If you point out facts or data, that the 'gaslightee' does not want to accept, then you are gaslighting them.
This what people are saying when they use it on social media. You're disagreeing with their feelings.
:sadface:
boo.
hoo.
hoo.