Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
Yes, parties can influence without winning seats. The Greens are another example, but it is much weaker influence than a block in Parliament.
The choice of parties in Germany is more to my taste.
I'd say Ukip have been a lot more successful than the Lib Dems over the last 30 years.
And in Germany, they have a choice of parties, but do they have a choice of government? I guess we're about to find out.
It’s a shame FPTP went so badly for UKIP, as if we had won 10-15 seats, there’d have been a party in the commons outlining the case for Brexit, and the madness of 2016-2019 might have been avoided. More likely, if the Kipper MPs had been crap, or Leave associated solely with them, it could have been a factor in a Remain win.
I guess a narrow Remain win with 10-15 UKIP MPs already in the commons may have meant further electoral success for UKIP subsequently though
I'm about as far away from kipper politics as you can get. But I agree with you - people should get what they vote for. 4m votes should not have resulted in zero MPs.
A comment which immediately undermines the claims you just made about STV and not giving power to parties.
I see the notion that FPTP is unfair getting trotted out again by the usual suspects. No it's not.
I wanted Trudeau to lose and the Canadian Conservatives to win but I have to accept the result overnight is a fair result.
My family in Canada are Albertan Conservatives but quite frankly in order to get power the Canadian Tories need to stop piling up votes in Alberta and win more votes across the country. Until they do that, last night's result was (regrettably) a fair result.
Just because you say it, doesn't make it right. Most measurable outcomes seem to say the opposite.
1) The winning party can often not get the most seats
2) Areas with a larger amount of supporters can swamp out any other representation (Alberta, BQ, Scotland, Northern Cities in England)
3) Very poor representation for smaller parties (NDP, LibDem, PC, Grn, RefUK, UKIP, Con/Lab/LDP in Scotland)
4) Massive majority and supreme power of Government for only 40%+,
5) Massively neutered parliament.
To be honest, Philip, I don't know why you don't push for an all-powerful president with no parliament, ie a dictatorship.
1. Totally incorrect. The winning party gains 100% of the seats. Every single MP is from the winning party in their own constituency. Even Keir Starmer was in the winning party in his constituency last time. Famously next Prime Minister Jo Swinson was not of course.
2. Working as intended. Every area gets the MP they chose.
3. So? They should do better and appeal for more votes next time then. If they do they can win.
4. If that's what the public votes for across the country then fair enough.
5. It's not neutered. It's what the people chose and it does its job. If the government strays from the confidence of a majority of MPs it fails, see 2017-19 for instance.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
"so nuclear" - bullshit.
A dozen tidal lagoon power stations around our coast would produce power that was:
a) consistent b) green c) emission free d) WASTE FREE e) have a capital cost of construction about a third that of nuclear f) produce electricity at about a 40-50% discount to the cost of nuclear g) have abandonment costs orders of magnitude lower than nuclear but h) as they last three times longer than a nuclear power station on the base case - probably many times that in practice - you won't need to abandon them.
Why does a submarine need to be parked up anywhere? The entire point of a submarine is that it's sat/submerged, hidden at sea, location unknown.
They are massive dock queens and spend more than 50% of their lives in dock being fixed, maintained, rearmed, fumigated for the smell of jizz/WD40, etc.
I imagine you haven't bothered watching BBC's submerged drama Vigil (if not, don't worry, it's overheated rubbish), but the sub interiors look incredibly sanitised, more like the shiny office of a tech company than a barrel for sweaty ratings. Is that representative of the modern Silent Service experience
I've never been on a British one but I know plenty of people who have and they all report a certain pervasive tang of incessant masturbation and hydrocarbons. I've been on a US LA class SSN and that didn't seem that bad for the 40 minutes but that too had a hint of muskiness.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It would be interesting to learn what Emma believes
Why - I suspect Emma's viewpoint would be based on marketing / PR advice nowadays.
The truth is that all children are the product of their parents beliefs and attitudes attached to the opportunities that were available to them.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
She is half a Romanian, half Chinese naturalised Brit. Which means she is a British citizen and has heritage elsewhere. Like so many of us do.
All this talk about nationalism, it always seems to be portrayed in extremis. Like she must be British OR Romanian instead of having elements of both. It makes me think back to my dipshit brother-in-law who had a very negative view of foreigners as a yong man and voted BNP. I asked him which country he would deport himself to - Ireland or Spain. As the party he supported saw 2nd generation migrants like him as foreigners as not "pure bred anglo-saxon"
In Emma Raducanu's case she is a British citizen. Her ethnic heritage is something those nations can be proud of but she's chosen to be British and not pursue Romanian or Chinese nationality.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
"so nuclear" - bullshit.
A dozen tidal lagoon power stations around our coast would produce power that was:
a) consistent b) green c) emission free d) WASTE FREE e) have a capital cost of construction about a third that of nuclear f) produce electricity at about a 40-50% discount to the cost of nuclear g) have abandonment costs orders of magnitude lower than nuclear but h) as they last three times longer than a nuclear power station on the base case - probably many times that in practice - you won't need to abandon them.
And yet for reasons unknown we have decided not to use Tidal power even though we had more suitable locations than anywhere else in the world.
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
QTWAIN. He renounced his citizenship therefore he's no longer a natural born citizen.
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure that's the case, if he were to get citizenship in the US it would be based on his birth certificate. Either way I don't see Americans voting for Boris as POTUS. It would be funny if he went for it though.
Whether he is a natural citizen would need to be tested in court, or by Congress. He could raise hundreds of millions well before it ever got to that stage, which might only happen if he was a nominee, or even once elected. (There are plenty who claim Ted Cruz is not a natural citizen, although the majority view is that he is).
I think it not unlikely that he goes for $$$$$, even if it is not a serious attempt.
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
QTWAIN. He renounced his citizenship therefore he's no longer a natural born citizen.
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure that's the case, if he were to get citizenship in the US it would be based on his birth certificate. Either way I don't see Americans voting for Boris as POTUS. It would be funny if he went for it though.
Never mind the citizenship Boris is at least a decade too young for POTUS.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It would be interesting to learn what Emma believes
I think I'd enjoy hearing from Emma on any subject but I sincerely hope she manages to stay out of politics so she can continue to focus on and enjoy her tennis.
What really pisses me off is people trying to exploit her success for their own political ends and attributing their own views to her. They seem to view her as a migrant first and a Brit second.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
I see the notion that FPTP is unfair getting trotted out again by the usual suspects. No it's not.
I wanted Trudeau to lose and the Canadian Conservatives to win but I have to accept the result overnight is a fair result.
My family in Canada are Albertan Conservatives but quite frankly in order to get power the Canadian Tories need to stop piling up votes in Alberta and win more votes across the country. Until they do that, last night's result was (regrettably) a fair result.
Just because you say it, doesn't make it right. Most measurable outcomes seem to say the opposite.
1) The winning party can often not get the most seats
2) Areas with a larger amount of supporters can swamp out any other representation (Alberta, BQ, Scotland, Northern Cities in England)
3) Very poor representation for smaller parties (NDP, LibDem, PC, Grn, RefUK, UKIP, Con/Lab/LDP in Scotland)
4) Massive majority and supreme power of Government for only 40%+,
5) Massively neutered parliament.
To be honest, Philip, I don't know why you don't push for an all-powerful president with no parliament, ie a dictatorship.
1. Totally incorrect. The winning party gains 100% of the seats. Every single MP is from the winning party in their own constituency. Even Keir Starmer was in the winning party in his constituency last time. Famously next Prime Minister Jo Swinson was not of course.
2. Working as intended. Every area gets the MP they chose.
3. So? They should do better and appeal for more votes next time then. If they do they can win.
4. If that's what the public votes for across the country then fair enough.
5. It's not neutered. It's what the people chose and it does its job. If the government strays from the confidence of a majority of MPs it fails, see 2017-19 for instance.
It's a view I suppose, but then hardly even handed. I shouldn't really expect anything different from you.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
She is half a Romanian, half Chinese naturalised Brit. Which means she is a British citizen and has heritage elsewhere. Like so many of us do.
All this talk about nationalism, it always seems to be portrayed in extremis. Like she must be British OR Romanian instead of having elements of both. It makes me think back to my dipshit brother-in-law who had a very negative view of foreigners as a yong man and voted BNP. I asked him which country he would deport himself to - Ireland or Spain. As the party he supported saw 2nd generation migrants like him as foreigners as not "pure bred anglo-saxon"
In Emma Raducanu's case she is a British citizen. Her ethnic heritage is something those nations can be proud of but she's chosen to be British and not pursue Romanian or Chinese nationality.
Yes, that's a fair post - my objection is that the imbecile who wrote this falsely attributes national identity to racial purity (wrong, and offensive) and then says that nations are an illusion. In fact, that's really what he wanted to use her for given that's what he believed anyway and headlined his post with.
I couldn't disagree with him more and have contempt for his views.
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
A comment which utterly misunderstands what people are actually voting for at an election.
Does it, though? Listen to people talking on this forum. People vote for parties, party leaders, and yes, individual candidates. Perhaps in that order.
The idea that each constituency is an island competition between individuals is a charming fiction, but perhaps 200 years out of date, if it ever was true even then.
Take Canada. There's been a fair amount of talk today about parties, and two or three leaders. How many of you who have commented have said anything about local issues or candidates? As Canada, so us.
Nope. Legally you are voting for an individual representative. That is the fundamental basis of our system. And more than a few of us still operate on that basis. Who that representative is beholden to within their party does play a part but by no means the most important part. We may use the shorthand of voting for or against a party but some of us at least still vote according to the way the system is supposed to work. That is why we allow MPs to cross the floor. Anything else puts far to much power in the hands of the parties and we should be trying to reduce that power not increase it.
We can retail the individualism of an MP or councillor able to cross the floor and elect them proportionately. As has just been pointed out FPTP wipes out the Tories in cities like Manchester which is absurd.
Up here I am about to start campaigning to become a LibDem councillor and we use STV for council elections. Its fair, it works, representatives are elected as individuals and are free to cross the floor (and often do).
The only way to do that is, as you say, with STV or with AV - something I voted for but which the public sadly rejected.
Any other PR system based on the proportion of votes gained by a party automatically gives the party the moral high ground in the claim that they can control MPs and that we are voting for a party not an individual representative. It gives more power to the parties rather than taking it away and is something that needs to be resisted. You can guess which systems the parties campaigning for electoral reform would prefer us to use.
Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies. You get proportionality, a choice of which representative to see if one is an anus, and you're still in control not a party who set a list.
The key balance would be how big a seat. As England is now set on "Metro Mayors" even in non-metro areas there is clearly a desire for some regional co-ordination. So why not copy Scotland - elect most members from a constituency and a smaller number elected by region.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Perhaps Muay Thai for Britain and cricket for Thailand to maximise opportunities?
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
"so nuclear" - bullshit.
A dozen tidal lagoon power stations around our coast would produce power that was:
a) consistent b) green c) emission free d) WASTE FREE e) have a capital cost of construction about a third that of nuclear f) produce electricity at about a 40-50% discount to the cost of nuclear g) have abandonment costs orders of magnitude lower than nuclear but h) as they last three times longer than a nuclear power station on the base case - probably many times that in practice - you won't need to abandon them.
And yet for reasons unknown we have decided not to use Tidal power even though we had more suitable locations than anywhere else in the world.
Any idea why that is?
From what I understand it is a form of institutional inertia.
Government is good at making a thing The Policy, in the permanent portions of the system (Civil Service etc). Once that is done (see Maggie and Global Warming, for example) the juggernaut proceeds. Anything against The Policy is crushed.
This includes facts that are not correct being used to judge The Opposition. One "fact" used against the tidal ponds was that they would require vast amounts of CO2 production to build. On closer enquiry, it becomes apparent that this assumes that they are built as giant, circular concrete dams. Which no-one has ever proposed, to my knowledge.
Related structure have been built (at a smaller scale) to protect oil rigs in shallow water in Canada against ice, for example - they are always rock/shingle berms.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
She came from Canada. Not Romania. But who gives a fuck?
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
QTWAIN. He renounced his citizenship therefore he's no longer a natural born citizen.
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure that's the case, if he were to get citizenship in the US it would be based on his birth certificate. Either way I don't see Americans voting for Boris as POTUS. It would be funny if he went for it though.
Whether he is a natural citizen would need to be tested in court, or by Congress. He could raise hundreds of millions well before it ever got to that stage, which might only happen if he was a nominee, or even once elected. (There are plenty who claim Ted Cruz is not a natural citizen, although the majority view is that he is).
I think it not unlikely that he goes for $$$$$, even if it is not a serious attempt.
IIRC there was debate about the late Senator McCain's right to stand, as he was born in an offshore US in (again IIRC) Panama.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
You've conflated base load and despatchable generation. Intermittent renewables need to be backed up with despatchable thermal plants. A mixture of CCGT, OCGT and engine sets. These are the folks with availability contracts ( being paid not to generate most of the time). The last thing an OCGT operator wants is to be called on to generate. It usually costs them money.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
Yes, parties can influence without winning seats. The Greens are another example, but it is much weaker influence than a block in Parliament.
The choice of parties in Germany is more to my taste.
I'd say Ukip have been a lot more successful than the Lib Dems over the last 30 years.
And in Germany, they have a choice of parties, but do they have a choice of government? I guess we're about to find out.
It’s a shame FPTP went so badly for UKIP, as if we had won 10-15 seats, there’d have been a party in the commons outlining the case for Brexit, and the madness of 2016-2019 might have been avoided. More likely, if the Kipper MPs had been crap, or Leave associated solely with them, it could have been a factor in a Remain win.
I guess a narrow Remain win with 10-15 UKIP MPs already in the commons may have meant further electoral success for UKIP subsequently though
I'm about as far away from kipper politics as you can get. But I agree with you - people should get what they vote for. 4m votes should not have resulted in zero MPs.
A comment which immediately undermines the claims you just made about STV and not giving power to parties.
Why? 4m people voted for candidates of the UKIP mindset. They should have been represented. We will continue to have political parties in this country so you can't say "no power to parties" as they will still choose candidates.
People would be free to vote for the candidates representing UKIP and expect some of them to be elected. No list system, no vote for a party, always for an individual.
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
A comment which utterly misunderstands what people are actually voting for at an election.
Does it, though? Listen to people talking on this forum. People vote for parties, party leaders, and yes, individual candidates. Perhaps in that order.
The idea that each constituency is an island competition between individuals is a charming fiction, but perhaps 200 years out of date, if it ever was true even then.
Take Canada. There's been a fair amount of talk today about parties, and two or three leaders. How many of you who have commented have said anything about local issues or candidates? As Canada, so us.
Nope. Legally you are voting for an individual representative. That is the fundamental basis of our system. And more than a few of us still operate on that basis. Who that representative is beholden to within their party does play a part but by no means the most important part. We may use the shorthand of voting for or against a party but some of us at least still vote according to the way the system is supposed to work. That is why we allow MPs to cross the floor. Anything else puts far to much power in the hands of the parties and we should be trying to reduce that power not increase it.
We can retail the individualism of an MP or councillor able to cross the floor and elect them proportionately. As has just been pointed out FPTP wipes out the Tories in cities like Manchester which is absurd.
Up here I am about to start campaigning to become a LibDem councillor and we use STV for council elections. Its fair, it works, representatives are elected as individuals and are free to cross the floor (and often do).
The only way to do that is, as you say, with STV or with AV - something I voted for but which the public sadly rejected.
Any other PR system based on the proportion of votes gained by a party automatically gives the party the moral high ground in the claim that they can control MPs and that we are voting for a party not an individual representative. It gives more power to the parties rather than taking it away and is something that needs to be resisted. You can guess which systems the parties campaigning for electoral reform would prefer us to use.
Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies. You get proportionality, a choice of which representative to see if one is an anus, and you're still in control not a party who set a list.
The key balance would be how big a seat. As England is now set on "Metro Mayors" even in non-metro areas there is clearly a desire for some regional co-ordination. So why not copy Scotland - elect most members from a constituency and a smaller number elected by region.
Because again it puts too much power in the hands of the parties. It is not even a case that we should be standing still on this. We should be actively reversing the ability of parties to coerce the individual representatives we elect. Moving to any system that is proportional based on party votes does yet more damage to democracy.
I see the notion that FPTP is unfair getting trotted out again by the usual suspects. No it's not.
I wanted Trudeau to lose and the Canadian Conservatives to win but I have to accept the result overnight is a fair result.
My family in Canada are Albertan Conservatives but quite frankly in order to get power the Canadian Tories need to stop piling up votes in Alberta and win more votes across the country. Until they do that, last night's result was (regrettably) a fair result.
Just because you say it, doesn't make it right. Most measurable outcomes seem to say the opposite.
1) The winning party can often not get the most seats
2) Areas with a larger amount of supporters can swamp out any other representation (Alberta, BQ, Scotland, Northern Cities in England)
3) Very poor representation for smaller parties (NDP, LibDem, PC, Grn, RefUK, UKIP, Con/Lab/LDP in Scotland)
4) Massive majority and supreme power of Government for only 40%+,
5) Massively neutered parliament.
To be honest, Philip, I don't know why you don't push for an all-powerful president with no parliament, ie a dictatorship.
1. Totally incorrect. The winning party gains 100% of the seats. Every single MP is from the winning party in their own constituency. Even Keir Starmer was in the winning party in his constituency last time. Famously next Prime Minister Jo Swinson was not of course.
2. Working as intended. Every area gets the MP they chose.
3. So? They should do better and appeal for more votes next time then. If they do they can win.
4. If that's what the public votes for across the country then fair enough.
5. It's not neutered. It's what the people chose and it does its job. If the government strays from the confidence of a majority of MPs it fails, see 2017-19 for instance.
It's a view I suppose, but then hardly even handed. I shouldn't really expect anything different from you.
Like you were even handed? 🤔
Every single MP in Parliament, without fail, is a winner. They all won their constituency and they were all the number one pick of their constituents.
Just because other constituencies chose a representative from a different party doesn't change that fact.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
Happy little soul, aren't you. I might, and do, disagree with you on occasion, but when I have actually been rude to you.
Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?
A question about that: will the Australians actually need to handle the fissionable material? With modern reactors having a 25+ year life, might they just send the boats back to the manufacturer for refuelling when the time comes?
Who the fuck knows? Delivering a completed reactor would still be an NPT violation I think.
It's all been left purposefully vague, like Brexit in 2016, so that all manner of hopes, dreams and fantasies (like building the submarines in the UK) can be projected onto its tabula rasa.
The only action I have seen is "have consulted very early with the IAEA".
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
Yes, parties can influence without winning seats. The Greens are another example, but it is much weaker influence than a block in Parliament.
The choice of parties in Germany is more to my taste.
I'd say Ukip have been a lot more successful than the Lib Dems over the last 30 years.
And in Germany, they have a choice of parties, but do they have a choice of government? I guess we're about to find out.
It’s a shame FPTP went so badly for UKIP, as if we had won 10-15 seats, there’d have been a party in the commons outlining the case for Brexit, and the madness of 2016-2019 might have been avoided. More likely, if the Kipper MPs had been crap, or Leave associated solely with them, it could have been a factor in a Remain win.
I guess a narrow Remain win with 10-15 UKIP MPs already in the commons may have meant further electoral success for UKIP subsequently though
I'm about as far away from kipper politics as you can get. But I agree with you - people should get what they vote for. 4m votes should not have resulted in zero MPs.
A comment which immediately undermines the claims you just made about STV and not giving power to parties.
Why? 4m people voted for candidates of the UKIP mindset. They should have been represented. We will continue to have political parties in this country so you can't say "no power to parties" as they will still choose candidates.
People would be free to vote for the candidates representing UKIP and expect some of them to be elected. No list system, no vote for a party, always for an individual.
Why should they be represented? They lost.
If UKIP wanted representatives they'd have to convince the plurality of voters in a constituency to vote for them. They failed to do so.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I see the notion that FPTP is unfair getting trotted out again by the usual suspects. No it's not.
I wanted Trudeau to lose and the Canadian Conservatives to win but I have to accept the result overnight is a fair result.
My family in Canada are Albertan Conservatives but quite frankly in order to get power the Canadian Tories need to stop piling up votes in Alberta and win more votes across the country. Until they do that, last night's result was (regrettably) a fair result.
Just because you say it, doesn't make it right. Most measurable outcomes seem to say the opposite.
1) The winning party can often not get the most seats
2) Areas with a larger amount of supporters can swamp out any other representation (Alberta, BQ, Scotland, Northern Cities in England)
3) Very poor representation for smaller parties (NDP, LibDem, PC, Grn, RefUK, UKIP, Con/Lab/LDP in Scotland)
4) Massive majority and supreme power of Government for only 40%+,
5) Massively neutered parliament.
To be honest, Philip, I don't know why you don't push for an all-powerful president with no parliament, ie a dictatorship.
1. Totally incorrect. The winning party gains 100% of the seats. Every single MP is from the winning party in their own constituency. Even Keir Starmer was in the winning party in his constituency last time. Famously next Prime Minister Jo Swinson was not of course.
2. Working as intended. Every area gets the MP they chose.
3. So? They should do better and appeal for more votes next time then. If they do they can win.
4. If that's what the public votes for across the country then fair enough.
5. It's not neutered. It's what the people chose and it does its job. If the government strays from the confidence of a majority of MPs it fails, see 2017-19 for instance.
It's a view I suppose, but then hardly even handed. I shouldn't really expect anything different from you.
Like you were even handed? 🤔
Every single MP in Parliament, without fail, is a winner. They all won their constituency and they were all the number one pick of their constituents.
Just because other constituencies chose a representative from a different party doesn't change that fact.
What do think about constituencies like Ynys Mon, where the candidate who comes first (of four) rarely has much more than 30-35% of the vote.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
"so nuclear" - bullshit.
A dozen tidal lagoon power stations around our coast would produce power that was:
a) consistent b) green c) emission free d) WASTE FREE e) have a capital cost of construction about a third that of nuclear f) produce electricity at about a 40-50% discount to the cost of nuclear g) have abandonment costs orders of magnitude lower than nuclear but h) as they last three times longer than a nuclear power station on the base case - probably many times that in practice - you won't need to abandon them.
And yet for reasons unknown we have decided not to use Tidal power even though we had more suitable locations than anywhere else in the world.
Any idea why that is?
Financial. I firmly believe that the era of tidal is coming because the other generating costs are going up. I also think there is a huge green blob that hates the idea of tidal lagoons as there will be impact on the natural world. Like nuclear, they want us not to use certain solutions to avoiding climate change, and I think would prefer us all to starve, neuter ourselves and go extinct.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It would be interesting to learn what Emma believes
I think I'd enjoy hearing from Emma on any subject but I sincerely hope she manages to stay out of politics so she can continue to focus on and enjoy her tennis.
What really pisses me off is people trying to exploit her success for their own political ends and attributing their own views to her. They seem to view her as a migrant first and a Brit second.
I find that insulting.
Thats what you get when stopping migration is and has been the singular political issue of this generation. People don't want migrants, especially those seen as low skilled and definitely don't want their kids. Until the kids grow up to become a world champion runner or tennis sensation.
Then they don't want migrant kids, but Mo / Emma are different. Its the same mindset as the "I don't like blacks but Frank Bruno is alright as he's world champion" comments you'd hear in the past. It'll never go away sadly.
How about - radical idea - we accept migrants as Brits if they self-identify as such. People like Emma Raducanu have a choice of nationalities and we should be delighted that they chose to be British. When people move to America for work so many of them naturalise - we could have been doing the same for the last few decades with Europeans instead of treating them with such disdain.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It should also be pointed out FPTP does not always benefit the Tories here either.
Eg in February 1974 Heath's Tories won the popular vote but Wilson's Labour won most seats.
In 2005 too Howard's Tories won the popular vote in England with 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour but Blair's Labour still comfortably won most seats in England with 286 to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Our HY is absolutely right on this. The present voting system is unfair to Conservatives as well.
How many Conservatives councillors are there today in Liverpool, for example, or Manchester? And how many would we expect is the number of councillors more or less corresponded to the overall Conservative vote? For that matter, when was a Conservative voice last heard in the council chambers of Liverpool and Manchester?
The fact is that the Conservatives represent a significant point of view, and it is outrageous that this is not reflected in the political discussions in certain parts of the country.
Isn't in swings and roundabouts? In 2005, in England, the Tories received 35.7% of the vote compared to Labour on 35.4%. Yet Labour received 286 seats compared to 194 for the Tories. I don't really remember many complaints back then. Of course this foreshadowed what would come for Labour. By having such a big discrepancy between votes and seats it meant that it was always going to be near a tipping point where a swing of a couple of percentage points would make a big difference. Maybe the same will happen to the Liberals in Canada the next time around?
There were lots of complaints back then because clearly Labour must be cheating. CCHQ did not initially understand voting efficiency and the futility of piling up huge majorities in the home counties.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
She is half a Romanian, half Chinese naturalised Brit. Which means she is a British citizen and has heritage elsewhere. Like so many of us do.
All this talk about nationalism, it always seems to be portrayed in extremis. Like she must be British OR Romanian instead of having elements of both. It makes me think back to my dipshit brother-in-law who had a very negative view of foreigners as a yong man and voted BNP. I asked him which country he would deport himself to - Ireland or Spain. As the party he supported saw 2nd generation migrants like him as foreigners as not "pure bred anglo-saxon"
In Emma Raducanu's case she is a British citizen. Her ethnic heritage is something those nations can be proud of but she's chosen to be British and not pursue Romanian or Chinese nationality.
Yes, that's a fair post - my objection is that the imbecile who wrote this falsely attributes national identity to racial purity (wrong, and offensive) and then says that nations are an illusion. In fact, that's really what he wanted to use her for given that's what he believed anyway and headlined his post with.
I couldn't disagree with him more and have contempt for his views.
I bet he's an arsehole in real life.
To be fair, he did avoid describing Emma as a 'Hot Teen Girl'.
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
A comment which utterly misunderstands what people are actually voting for at an election.
Does it, though? Listen to people talking on this forum. People vote for parties, party leaders, and yes, individual candidates. Perhaps in that order.
The idea that each constituency is an island competition between individuals is a charming fiction, but perhaps 200 years out of date, if it ever was true even then.
Take Canada. There's been a fair amount of talk today about parties, and two or three leaders. How many of you who have commented have said anything about local issues or candidates? As Canada, so us.
Nope. Legally you are voting for an individual representative. That is the fundamental basis of our system. And more than a few of us still operate on that basis. Who that representative is beholden to within their party does play a part but by no means the most important part. We may use the shorthand of voting for or against a party but some of us at least still vote according to the way the system is supposed to work. That is why we allow MPs to cross the floor. Anything else puts far to much power in the hands of the parties and we should be trying to reduce that power not increase it.
We can retail the individualism of an MP or councillor able to cross the floor and elect them proportionately. As has just been pointed out FPTP wipes out the Tories in cities like Manchester which is absurd.
Up here I am about to start campaigning to become a LibDem councillor and we use STV for council elections. Its fair, it works, representatives are elected as individuals and are free to cross the floor (and often do).
The only way to do that is, as you say, with STV or with AV - something I voted for but which the public sadly rejected.
Any other PR system based on the proportion of votes gained by a party automatically gives the party the moral high ground in the claim that they can control MPs and that we are voting for a party not an individual representative. It gives more power to the parties rather than taking it away and is something that needs to be resisted. You can guess which systems the parties campaigning for electoral reform would prefer us to use.
Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies. You get proportionality, a choice of which representative to see if one is an anus, and you're still in control not a party who set a list.
The key balance would be how big a seat. As England is now set on "Metro Mayors" even in non-metro areas there is clearly a desire for some regional co-ordination. So why not copy Scotland - elect most members from a constituency and a smaller number elected by region.
Because again it puts too much power in the hands of the parties. It is not even a case that we should be standing still on this. We should be actively reversing the ability of parties to coerce the individual representatives we elect. Moving to any system that is proportional based on party votes does yet more damage to democracy.
So are you proposing that we have direct democracy where we abolish political parties? I am proposing a system that is proportional based on votes for the individual. Under STV-MMC you may well have 3 candidates from each party chasing the 3 seats available, but you vote for individuals not the party.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Perhaps Muay Thai for Britain and cricket for Thailand to maximise opportunities?
Cricket possibly; both girls so Muay Thai's unlikely. Actually, one was very taken by cricket when watching the Thai ladies in the Womens World Cup. Trouble is that thanks to Covid there's been very little school sport for them recently.
My daughter's school recently had sports day, postponed from the end of last year so parents could come without restrictions.
First to third in every event got a sticker, at the end of the day my daughter asked why some of her friends got lots of stickers and she didn't get any. But she understood that she didn't win the race and that's ok. We were proud of her that she tried her best even if she didn't win the race.
My primary school had an "all must get prizes" mentality and it's unhealthy. I'm glad that her school doesn't and I'm hoping it's something schools have put behind them.
It's incredible that some people think "all must get prizes" should apply to democracy too. If the likes of UKIP lose every race they compete in, then they lost fair and square. Maybe they should work to try and win next time, not change the system so all get prizes just for taking part?
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It would be interesting to learn what Emma believes
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
Happy little soul, aren't you. I might, and do, disagree with you on occasion, but when I have actually been rude to you.
I'm not the one trying to abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends. I find that extremely rude, and the post itself is softly bigoted.
If you find it "helpful and refreshing" then, yes, I'm afraid you do have moronic views.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
Yes, parties can influence without winning seats. The Greens are another example, but it is much weaker influence than a block in Parliament.
The choice of parties in Germany is more to my taste.
I'd say Ukip have been a lot more successful than the Lib Dems over the last 30 years.
And in Germany, they have a choice of parties, but do they have a choice of government? I guess we're about to find out.
It’s a shame FPTP went so badly for UKIP, as if we had won 10-15 seats, there’d have been a party in the commons outlining the case for Brexit, and the madness of 2016-2019 might have been avoided. More likely, if the Kipper MPs had been crap, or Leave associated solely with them, it could have been a factor in a Remain win.
I guess a narrow Remain win with 10-15 UKIP MPs already in the commons may have meant further electoral success for UKIP subsequently though
I'm about as far away from kipper politics as you can get. But I agree with you - people should get what they vote for. 4m votes should not have resulted in zero MPs.
A comment which immediately undermines the claims you just made about STV and not giving power to parties.
Why? 4m people voted for candidates of the UKIP mindset. They should have been represented. We will continue to have political parties in this country so you can't say "no power to parties" as they will still choose candidates.
People would be free to vote for the candidates representing UKIP and expect some of them to be elected. No list system, no vote for a party, always for an individual.
Why should they be represented? They lost.
If UKIP wanted representatives they'd have to convince the plurality of voters in a constituency to vote for them. They failed to do so.
Well of course they didn't lose. As the most successful political pressure group in recent political history they got exactly what they wanted. They agitated for a particular policy and it was granted to them by the government of the day.
As to the electoral implications of that - ie formal vs "informal" influence, I think people are happy with FPTP and while it may be imperfect, it is our imperfect and as you say, all a party needs to do if it wants actually to be in government is to convince enough people in each constituency to vote for them.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
Yes, parties can influence without winning seats. The Greens are another example, but it is much weaker influence than a block in Parliament.
The choice of parties in Germany is more to my taste.
I'd say Ukip have been a lot more successful than the Lib Dems over the last 30 years.
And in Germany, they have a choice of parties, but do they have a choice of government? I guess we're about to find out.
It’s a shame FPTP went so badly for UKIP, as if we had won 10-15 seats, there’d have been a party in the commons outlining the case for Brexit, and the madness of 2016-2019 might have been avoided. More likely, if the Kipper MPs had been crap, or Leave associated solely with them, it could have been a factor in a Remain win.
I guess a narrow Remain win with 10-15 UKIP MPs already in the commons may have meant further electoral success for UKIP subsequently though
I'm about as far away from kipper politics as you can get. But I agree with you - people should get what they vote for. 4m votes should not have resulted in zero MPs.
A comment which immediately undermines the claims you just made about STV and not giving power to parties.
Why? 4m people voted for candidates of the UKIP mindset. They should have been represented. We will continue to have political parties in this country so you can't say "no power to parties" as they will still choose candidates.
People would be free to vote for the candidates representing UKIP and expect some of them to be elected. No list system, no vote for a party, always for an individual.
Why should they be represented? They lost.
If UKIP wanted representatives they'd have to convince the plurality of voters in a constituency to vote for them. They failed to do so.
It depends on how high up the chain we want to focus the plurality. Here and now you are absolutely right. There is no general election, merely 650 simultaneous local ones. The problem is that as soon as people vote for their individual candidate in their individual seat everyone - the candidates, the parties and the voters - assume they have voted for something nationally.
You and I know they haven't. But they believe they have and won't be told otherwise. So we can change the electoral system to represent what people want and think they have, or keep getting these skewed national results.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
"so nuclear" - bullshit.
A dozen tidal lagoon power stations around our coast would produce power that was:
a) consistent b) green c) emission free d) WASTE FREE e) have a capital cost of construction about a third that of nuclear f) produce electricity at about a 40-50% discount to the cost of nuclear g) have abandonment costs orders of magnitude lower than nuclear but h) as they last three times longer than a nuclear power station on the base case - probably many times that in practice - you won't need to abandon them.
And yet for reasons unknown we have decided not to use Tidal power even though we had more suitable locations than anywhere else in the world.
Any idea why that is?
Financial. I firmly believe that the era of tidal is coming because the other generating costs are going up. I also think there is a huge green blob that hates the idea of tidal lagoons as there will be impact on the natural world. Like nuclear, they want us not to use certain solutions to avoiding climate change, and I think would prefer us all to starve, neuter ourselves and go extinct.
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
QTWAIN. He renounced his citizenship therefore he's no longer a natural born citizen.
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure that's the case, if he were to get citizenship in the US it would be based on his birth certificate. Either way I don't see Americans voting for Boris as POTUS. It would be funny if he went for it though.
Whether he is a natural citizen would need to be tested in court, or by Congress. He could raise hundreds of millions well before it ever got to that stage, which might only happen if he was a nominee, or even once elected. (There are plenty who claim Ted Cruz is not a natural citizen, although the majority view is that he is).
I think it not unlikely that he goes for $$$$$, even if it is not a serious attempt.
IIRC there was debate about the late Senator McCain's right to stand, as he was born in an offshore US in (again IIRC) Panama.
Even if Boris were able to un-renounce and be deemed to have regained or never have lost his natural-born citizenship,, the qualification everyone forgets for POTUS is fourteen years residency in the US. It does not have to be the fourteen years immediately prior to election or taking office, but I don’t think he would come close to that even if the US overturned his renunciation today.
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
A comment which utterly misunderstands what people are actually voting for at an election.
Does it, though? Listen to people talking on this forum. People vote for parties, party leaders, and yes, individual candidates. Perhaps in that order.
The idea that each constituency is an island competition between individuals is a charming fiction, but perhaps 200 years out of date, if it ever was true even then.
Take Canada. There's been a fair amount of talk today about parties, and two or three leaders. How many of you who have commented have said anything about local issues or candidates? As Canada, so us.
Nope. Legally you are voting for an individual representative. That is the fundamental basis of our system. And more than a few of us still operate on that basis. Who that representative is beholden to within their party does play a part but by no means the most important part. We may use the shorthand of voting for or against a party but some of us at least still vote according to the way the system is supposed to work. That is why we allow MPs to cross the floor. Anything else puts far to much power in the hands of the parties and we should be trying to reduce that power not increase it.
We can retail the individualism of an MP or councillor able to cross the floor and elect them proportionately. As has just been pointed out FPTP wipes out the Tories in cities like Manchester which is absurd.
Up here I am about to start campaigning to become a LibDem councillor and we use STV for council elections. Its fair, it works, representatives are elected as individuals and are free to cross the floor (and often do).
The only way to do that is, as you say, with STV or with AV - something I voted for but which the public sadly rejected.
Any other PR system based on the proportion of votes gained by a party automatically gives the party the moral high ground in the claim that they can control MPs and that we are voting for a party not an individual representative. It gives more power to the parties rather than taking it away and is something that needs to be resisted. You can guess which systems the parties campaigning for electoral reform would prefer us to use.
Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies. You get proportionality, a choice of which representative to see if one is an anus, and you're still in control not a party who set a list.
The key balance would be how big a seat. As England is now set on "Metro Mayors" even in non-metro areas there is clearly a desire for some regional co-ordination. So why not copy Scotland - elect most members from a constituency and a smaller number elected by region.
Because again it puts too much power in the hands of the parties. It is not even a case that we should be standing still on this. We should be actively reversing the ability of parties to coerce the individual representatives we elect. Moving to any system that is proportional based on party votes does yet more damage to democracy.
So are you proposing that we have direct democracy where we abolish political parties? I am proposing a system that is proportional based on votes for the individual. Under STV-MMC you may well have 3 candidates from each party chasing the 3 seats available, but you vote for individuals not the party.
The Irish seem to manage STV very well, with Independents getting elected as well as party apparatchiks.
One of the problems in this country is that the local Party committee in a 'safe seat' is, effectively, the 'electorate'.
I see the notion that FPTP is unfair getting trotted out again by the usual suspects. No it's not.
I wanted Trudeau to lose and the Canadian Conservatives to win but I have to accept the result overnight is a fair result.
My family in Canada are Albertan Conservatives but quite frankly in order to get power the Canadian Tories need to stop piling up votes in Alberta and win more votes across the country. Until they do that, last night's result was (regrettably) a fair result.
Just because you say it, doesn't make it right. Most measurable outcomes seem to say the opposite.
1) The winning party can often not get the most seats
2) Areas with a larger amount of supporters can swamp out any other representation (Alberta, BQ, Scotland, Northern Cities in England)
3) Very poor representation for smaller parties (NDP, LibDem, PC, Grn, RefUK, UKIP, Con/Lab/LDP in Scotland)
4) Massive majority and supreme power of Government for only 40%+,
5) Massively neutered parliament.
To be honest, Philip, I don't know why you don't push for an all-powerful president with no parliament, ie a dictatorship.
1. Totally incorrect. The winning party gains 100% of the seats. Every single MP is from the winning party in their own constituency. Even Keir Starmer was in the winning party in his constituency last time. Famously next Prime Minister Jo Swinson was not of course.
2. Working as intended. Every area gets the MP they chose.
3. So? They should do better and appeal for more votes next time then. If they do they can win.
4. If that's what the public votes for across the country then fair enough.
5. It's not neutered. It's what the people chose and it does its job. If the government strays from the confidence of a majority of MPs it fails, see 2017-19 for instance.
It's a view I suppose, but then hardly even handed. I shouldn't really expect anything different from you.
Like you were even handed? 🤔
Every single MP in Parliament, without fail, is a winner. They all won their constituency and they were all the number one pick of their constituents.
Just because other constituencies chose a representative from a different party doesn't change that fact.
What do think about constituencies like Ynys Mon, where the candidate who comes first (of four) rarely has much more than 30-35% of the vote.
If that's their choice, that's their choice. Every candidate starts with zero votes every election.
If an alternative candidate arose capable of winning 37% in those circumstances they'd be the winner. That they haven't just shows that the duly elected candidate was still the most popular after all.
Why does a submarine need to be parked up anywhere? The entire point of a submarine is that it's sat/submerged, hidden at sea, location unknown.
They are massive dock queens and spend more than 50% of their lives in dock being fixed, maintained, rearmed, fumigated for the smell of jizz/WD40, etc.
I imagine you haven't bothered watching BBC's submerged drama Vigil (if not, don't worry, it's overheated rubbish), but the sub interiors look incredibly sanitised, more like the shiny office of a tech company than a barrel for sweaty ratings. Is that representative of the modern Silent Service experience
Channel 5 have a documentary series on life aboard UK subs - didn't look remotely sanitised!
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
QTWAIN. He renounced his citizenship therefore he's no longer a natural born citizen.
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure that's the case, if he were to get citizenship in the US it would be based on his birth certificate. Either way I don't see Americans voting for Boris as POTUS. It would be funny if he went for it though.
Whether he is a natural citizen would need to be tested in court, or by Congress. He could raise hundreds of millions well before it ever got to that stage....
Not if he's not a citizen. That would raise another set of issues...
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
Happy little soul, aren't you. I might, and do, disagree with you on occasion, but when I have actually been rude to you.
I'm not the one trying to abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends. I find that extremely rude, and the post itself is softly bigoted.
If you find it "helpful and refreshing" then, yes, I'm afraid you do have moronic views.
I certainly wouldn't try to ' abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends'. The fact is that as a result of globalisation she's got a very diverse background, and seeing that recognised is good. I find it quite amusing to see various nationalists tying themselves in knots trying to 'claim' her.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
Happy little soul, aren't you. I might, and do, disagree with you on occasion, but when I have actually been rude to you.
I believe Casino was opining on the undesirability of abuse in politics, only yesterday.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
"so nuclear" - bullshit.
A dozen tidal lagoon power stations around our coast would produce power that was:
a) consistent b) green c) emission free d) WASTE FREE e) have a capital cost of construction about a third that of nuclear f) produce electricity at about a 40-50% discount to the cost of nuclear g) have abandonment costs orders of magnitude lower than nuclear but h) as they last three times longer than a nuclear power station on the base case - probably many times that in practice - you won't need to abandon them.
And yet for reasons unknown we have decided not to use Tidal power even though we had more suitable locations than anywhere else in the world.
Any idea why that is?
Financial. I firmly believe that the era of tidal is coming because the other generating costs are going up. I also think there is a huge green blob that hates the idea of tidal lagoons as there will be impact on the natural world. Like nuclear, they want us not to use certain solutions to avoiding climate change, and I think would prefer us all to starve, neuter ourselves and go extinct.
Tidal lagoons last a very very long time indeed - I think there's a penny rich pound poor mentality within Gov't about these sorts of things too.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It should also be pointed out FPTP does not always benefit the Tories here either.
Eg in February 1974 Heath's Tories won the popular vote but Wilson's Labour won most seats.
In 2005 too Howard's Tories won the popular vote in England with 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour but Blair's Labour still comfortably won most seats in England with 286 to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Our HY is absolutely right on this. The present voting system is unfair to Conservatives as well.
How many Conservatives councillors are there today in Liverpool, for example, or Manchester? And how many would we expect is the number of councillors more or less corresponded to the overall Conservative vote? For that matter, when was a Conservative voice last heard in the council chambers of Liverpool and Manchester?
The fact is that the Conservatives represent a significant point of view, and it is outrageous that this is not reflected in the political discussions in certain parts of the country.
Who cares which political party it's "fair" to - surely the point of an electoral system is to be fair to the voters ?
True, but is it not effectively the same thing ie fptp is not fair to the conservative voters in Liverpool
It is fair. They just lost fair and square.
No they didn't. You could easily get situations where in the towns party A gets a small majority of party B in all wards and outside of the town party C gets a small majority of party B in all the wards. So party B gets more votes and no seats and the two smaller parties split the council between them. How is that representative?
You can then rearrange the ward boundaries and get a completely different set of result. It is just a lottery.
Those Conservative voters in Liverpool (pick you own Lab/Con/LD dominated council) deserve fair representation.
A democracy isn't just about the winner taking all, it is about fair representation of the voters.
Why does a submarine need to be parked up anywhere? The entire point of a submarine is that it's sat/submerged, hidden at sea, location unknown.
They are massive dock queens and spend more than 50% of their lives in dock being fixed, maintained, rearmed, fumigated for the smell of jizz/WD40, etc.
I imagine you haven't bothered watching BBC's submerged drama Vigil (if not, don't worry, it's overheated rubbish), but the sub interiors look incredibly sanitised, more like the shiny office of a tech company than a barrel for sweaty ratings. Is that representative of the modern Silent Service experience
Channel 5 have a documentary series on life aboard UK subs - didn't look remotely sanitised!
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
A comment which utterly misunderstands what people are actually voting for at an election.
Does it, though? Listen to people talking on this forum. People vote for parties, party leaders, and yes, individual candidates. Perhaps in that order.
The idea that each constituency is an island competition between individuals is a charming fiction, but perhaps 200 years out of date, if it ever was true even then.
Take Canada. There's been a fair amount of talk today about parties, and two or three leaders. How many of you who have commented have said anything about local issues or candidates? As Canada, so us.
Nope. Legally you are voting for an individual representative. That is the fundamental basis of our system. And more than a few of us still operate on that basis. Who that representative is beholden to within their party does play a part but by no means the most important part. We may use the shorthand of voting for or against a party but some of us at least still vote according to the way the system is supposed to work. That is why we allow MPs to cross the floor. Anything else puts far to much power in the hands of the parties and we should be trying to reduce that power not increase it.
We can retail the individualism of an MP or councillor able to cross the floor and elect them proportionately. As has just been pointed out FPTP wipes out the Tories in cities like Manchester which is absurd.
Up here I am about to start campaigning to become a LibDem councillor and we use STV for council elections. Its fair, it works, representatives are elected as individuals and are free to cross the floor (and often do).
The only way to do that is, as you say, with STV or with AV - something I voted for but which the public sadly rejected.
Any other PR system based on the proportion of votes gained by a party automatically gives the party the moral high ground in the claim that they can control MPs and that we are voting for a party not an individual representative. It gives more power to the parties rather than taking it away and is something that needs to be resisted. You can guess which systems the parties campaigning for electoral reform would prefer us to use.
Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies. You get proportionality, a choice of which representative to see if one is an anus, and you're still in control not a party who set a list.
The key balance would be how big a seat. As England is now set on "Metro Mayors" even in non-metro areas there is clearly a desire for some regional co-ordination. So why not copy Scotland - elect most members from a constituency and a smaller number elected by region.
Because again it puts too much power in the hands of the parties. It is not even a case that we should be standing still on this. We should be actively reversing the ability of parties to coerce the individual representatives we elect. Moving to any system that is proportional based on party votes does yet more damage to democracy.
So are you proposing that we have direct democracy where we abolish political parties? I am proposing a system that is proportional based on votes for the individual. Under STV-MMC you may well have 3 candidates from each party chasing the 3 seats available, but you vote for individuals not the party.
The Irish seem to manage STV very well, with Independents getting elected as well as party apparatchiks.
One of the problems in this country is that the local Party committee in a 'safe seat' is, effectively, the 'electorate'.
And that is something FPTP embeds. And when you end up with one party in power for a generation we get idiocy, corruption and waste.
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
QTWAIN. He renounced his citizenship therefore he's no longer a natural born citizen.
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure that's the case, if he were to get citizenship in the US it would be based on his birth certificate. Either way I don't see Americans voting for Boris as POTUS. It would be funny if he went for it though.
Whether he is a natural citizen would need to be tested in court, or by Congress. He could raise hundreds of millions well before it ever got to that stage....
Not if he's not a citizen. That would raise another set of issues...
Issues for a normal person, sure, but not really for someone of his status. Wheels will be greased and it might take a bit of time, but if ever he really wants to be a US citizen again, he will be.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
My daughter's school recently had sports day, postponed from the end of last year so parents could come without restrictions.
First to third in every event got a sticker, at the end of the day my daughter asked why some of her friends got lots of stickers and she didn't get any. But she understood that she didn't win the race and that's ok. We were proud of her that she tried her best even if she didn't win the race.
My primary school had an "all must get prizes" mentality and it's unhealthy. I'm glad that her school doesn't and I'm hoping it's something schools have put behind them.
It's incredible that some people think "all must get prizes" should apply to democracy too. If the likes of UKIP lose every race they compete in, then they lost fair and square. Maybe they should work to try and win next time, not change the system so all get prizes just for taking part?
The point is that UKIP's voice is lost in subsequent debates within Parliament when decisions are made.
Now that may or may not be a good thing but it's worth emphasising that FPTP can result in a sanitised voice that doesn't reflect significant parts of the electorate.
And it's possible that had UKIPs views been heard within Parliament the electorate may have voted differently when Brexit gave them the opportunity to vote "F*** the current system".
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
A comment which utterly misunderstands what people are actually voting for at an election.
Does it, though? Listen to people talking on this forum. People vote for parties, party leaders, and yes, individual candidates. Perhaps in that order.
The idea that each constituency is an island competition between individuals is a charming fiction, but perhaps 200 years out of date, if it ever was true even then.
Take Canada. There's been a fair amount of talk today about parties, and two or three leaders. How many of you who have commented have said anything about local issues or candidates? As Canada, so us.
Nope. Legally you are voting for an individual representative. That is the fundamental basis of our system. And more than a few of us still operate on that basis. Who that representative is beholden to within their party does play a part but by no means the most important part. We may use the shorthand of voting for or against a party but some of us at least still vote according to the way the system is supposed to work. That is why we allow MPs to cross the floor. Anything else puts far to much power in the hands of the parties and we should be trying to reduce that power not increase it.
We can retail the individualism of an MP or councillor able to cross the floor and elect them proportionately. As has just been pointed out FPTP wipes out the Tories in cities like Manchester which is absurd.
Up here I am about to start campaigning to become a LibDem councillor and we use STV for council elections. Its fair, it works, representatives are elected as individuals and are free to cross the floor (and often do).
The only way to do that is, as you say, with STV or with AV - something I voted for but which the public sadly rejected.
Any other PR system based on the proportion of votes gained by a party automatically gives the party the moral high ground in the claim that they can control MPs and that we are voting for a party not an individual representative. It gives more power to the parties rather than taking it away and is something that needs to be resisted. You can guess which systems the parties campaigning for electoral reform would prefer us to use.
Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies. You get proportionality, a choice of which representative to see if one is an anus, and you're still in control not a party who set a list.
The key balance would be how big a seat. As England is now set on "Metro Mayors" even in non-metro areas there is clearly a desire for some regional co-ordination. So why not copy Scotland - elect most members from a constituency and a smaller number elected by region.
Because again it puts too much power in the hands of the parties. It is not even a case that we should be standing still on this. We should be actively reversing the ability of parties to coerce the individual representatives we elect. Moving to any system that is proportional based on party votes does yet more damage to democracy.
So are you proposing that we have direct democracy where we abolish political parties? I am proposing a system that is proportional based on votes for the individual. Under STV-MMC you may well have 3 candidates from each party chasing the 3 seats available, but you vote for individuals not the party.
The Irish seem to manage STV very well, with Independents getting elected as well as party apparatchiks.
One of the problems in this country is that the local Party committee in a 'safe seat' is, effectively, the 'electorate'.
With STV it is the 'excess votes' thing that I can't get my head around. Which votes are the excess? Do they just scoop up a pile of ballots and reallocate them or is there some kind of statistical analysis performed to determine the proportion that should go to each of the other remaining candidates? And when we get down to the 16th round of counting can they really be sure that ballots are being relocated correctly?
I want PR, but favour the simplicity of d'Hondt. The order of candidates for each party to be determined by primaries of party members.
Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?
A question about that: will the Australians actually need to handle the fissionable material? With modern reactors having a 25+ year life, might they just send the boats back to the manufacturer for refuelling when the time comes?
Who the fuck knows? Delivering a completed reactor would still be an NPT violation I think.
It's all been left purposefully vague, like Brexit in 2016, so that all manner of hopes, dreams and fantasies (like building the submarines in the UK) can be projected onto its tabula rasa.
The only action I have seen is "have consulted very early with the IAEA".
Does it count as proliferation if they rent the reactors?
It's the IAEA annual meeting at the moment, so they are probably talking about it.
No, as there is a loophole in the Non Proliferation Treaty from the outset. it's bee an issue for decades: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/sp6/files/jnmm-philippe-2014.pdf There seems to have been a tacit understanding not to export nuclear subs (or it just hasn't been in the nuclear powers interests), until now.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
To be fair, the point about lack of mention about what the young lady herself might think is reasonable. The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It should also be pointed out FPTP does not always benefit the Tories here either.
Eg in February 1974 Heath's Tories won the popular vote but Wilson's Labour won most seats.
In 2005 too Howard's Tories won the popular vote in England with 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour but Blair's Labour still comfortably won most seats in England with 286 to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Our HY is absolutely right on this. The present voting system is unfair to Conservatives as well.
How many Conservatives councillors are there today in Liverpool, for example, or Manchester? And how many would we expect is the number of councillors more or less corresponded to the overall Conservative vote? For that matter, when was a Conservative voice last heard in the council chambers of Liverpool and Manchester?
The fact is that the Conservatives represent a significant point of view, and it is outrageous that this is not reflected in the political discussions in certain parts of the country.
Who cares which political party it's "fair" to - surely the point of an electoral system is to be fair to the voters ?
True, but is it not effectively the same thing ie fptp is not fair to the conservative voters in Liverpool
It is fair. They just lost fair and square.
No they didn't. You could easily get situations where in the towns party A gets a small majority of party B in all wards and outside of the town party C gets a small majority of party B in all the wards. So party B gets more votes and no seats and the two smaller parties split the council between them. How is that representative?
You can then rearrange the ward boundaries and get a completely different set of result. It is just a lottery.
Those Conservative voters in Liverpool (pick you own Lab/Con/LD dominated council) deserve fair representation.
A democracy isn't just about the winner taking all, it is about fair representation of the voters.
@Nigelb I withdraw my response to your post earlier. I realise from my last post that your point was a really spot on observation and my reply naive. What matters is not what is fair to the political party but what is fair to the voters.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
Happy little soul, aren't you. I might, and do, disagree with you on occasion, but when I have actually been rude to you.
I'm not the one trying to abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends. I find that extremely rude, and the post itself is softly bigoted.
If you find it "helpful and refreshing" then, yes, I'm afraid you do have moronic views.
I certainly wouldn't try to ' abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends'. The fact is that as a result of globalisation she's got a very diverse background, and seeing that recognised is good. I find it quite amusing to see various nationalists tying themselves in knots trying to 'claim' her.
Who are these "nationalists" you speak of that are trying to "claim" her? You mean people celebrating the fact that someone British who's proudly competing as a Briton has secured a British win? Because if you do, then you're saying most of the population here are "nationalist" on the basis that someone with mixed ancestry must always be seen as a migrant first, and a Briton second. I find that offensive.
The only ones doing the claiming here are the softly-bigoted progressive Left.
I went to an international school. My sister was born in Canada. My parents were born in India. I have half-British/half-Columbian cousins. My Uncle lives in Australia. My other cousin married a Kenyan lady. My wife is Bulgarian. My daughter is British, but with Bulgarian ancestry too, and I have other family members who married fellow Britons too.
It might surprise you to we all celebrated Emma's win, and we all have an affection for the UK and common roots here too.
There's nothing exclusive or anachronistic about national identity, and long may it remain so.
My daughter's school recently had sports day, postponed from the end of last year so parents could come without restrictions.
First to third in every event got a sticker, at the end of the day my daughter asked why some of her friends got lots of stickers and she didn't get any. But she understood that she didn't win the race and that's ok. We were proud of her that she tried her best even if she didn't win the race.
My primary school had an "all must get prizes" mentality and it's unhealthy. I'm glad that her school doesn't and I'm hoping it's something schools have put behind them.
It's incredible that some people think "all must get prizes" should apply to democracy too. If the likes of UKIP lose every race they compete in, then they lost fair and square. Maybe they should work to try and win next time, not change the system so all get prizes just for taking part?
The point is that UKIP's voice is lost in subsequent debates within Parliament when decisions are made.
Now that may or may not be a good thing but it's worth emphasising that FPTP can result in a sanitised voice that doesn't reflect significant parts of the electorate.
And it's possible that had UKIPs views been heard within Parliament the electorate may have voted differently when Brexit gave them the opportunity to vote "F*** the current system".
Was it sanitised though? Was it lost though? Perhaps when it came to the extreme racist elements those weren't there but when it came to the sensible parts of their platform like debating Brexit that view absolutely was represented in Parliament.
Because FPTP ensures we get big tent politics not homogeneity, so the major parties need to appeal to other strands of view in order to continue to win or they'll lose and be displaced.
An irony is that PR can sanitise politics. Because under PR its possible that UKIP would be elected as a minority but be political "untouchables" nobody aligns with and so despite Brexit being a view of the majority of the nation we might have ended up with them being excluded as the Tories may not have been seeking to win those votes anymore. And needing to be more loyal to the whip due to the much greater power parties have over MPs in PR.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It would be interesting to learn what Emma believes
I think I'd enjoy hearing from Emma on any subject but I sincerely hope she manages to stay out of politics so she can continue to focus on and enjoy her tennis.
What really pisses me off is people trying to exploit her success for their own political ends and attributing their own views to her. They seem to view her as a migrant first and a Brit second.
I find that insulting.
Thats what you get when stopping migration is and has been the singular political issue of this generation. People don't want migrants, especially those seen as low skilled and definitely don't want their kids. Until the kids grow up to become a world champion runner or tennis sensation.
Then they don't want migrant kids, but Mo / Emma are different. Its the same mindset as the "I don't like blacks but Frank Bruno is alright as he's world champion" comments you'd hear in the past. It'll never go away sadly.
How about - radical idea - we accept migrants as Brits if they self-identify as such. People like Emma Raducanu have a choice of nationalities and we should be delighted that they chose to be British. When people move to America for work so many of them naturalise - we could have been doing the same for the last few decades with Europeans instead of treating them with such disdain.
This old canard. Most people want controlled migration - neither no migration or uncontrolled migration.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
Like I said earlier, I think his post is wanky but fundamentally true. At the end of the day, the nation is simply a social construct. It has its uses as a means of ordering society and international affairs, but for many people it is only a part of their identity. It's why I found Theresa May's Citizens of Nowhere speech so stupid and so objectionable. Yes, I have more in common with a liberal, educated person in Sweden, or the US, or even India or Iran, than I do with many of my fellow-citizens. Why is that a problem? Or to put it differently, why is the solution to this problem for me to pretend that it isn't true?
My daughter's school recently had sports day, postponed from the end of last year so parents could come without restrictions.
First to third in every event got a sticker, at the end of the day my daughter asked why some of her friends got lots of stickers and she didn't get any. But she understood that she didn't win the race and that's ok. We were proud of her that she tried her best even if she didn't win the race.
My primary school had an "all must get prizes" mentality and it's unhealthy. I'm glad that her school doesn't and I'm hoping it's something schools have put behind them.
It's incredible that some people think "all must get prizes" should apply to democracy too. If the likes of UKIP lose every race they compete in, then they lost fair and square. Maybe they should work to try and win next time, not change the system so all get prizes just for taking part?
Is democracy a sport? I guess on a site about gambling on it like a sport, it might seem that way.
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
QTWAIN. He renounced his citizenship therefore he's no longer a natural born citizen.
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure that's the case, if he were to get citizenship in the US it would be based on his birth certificate. Either way I don't see Americans voting for Boris as POTUS. It would be funny if he went for it though.
Whether he is a natural citizen would need to be tested in court, or by Congress. He could raise hundreds of millions well before it ever got to that stage....
Not if he's not a citizen. That would raise another set of issues...
Issues for a normal person, sure, but not really for someone of his status. Wheels will be greased and it might take a bit of time, but if ever he really wants to be a US citizen again, he will be.
I meant the issues around fundraising as a foreign national. Foreign nationals are allowed to undertake some political actions in the U.S., as long as those actions are not "connected with any election to political office at the federal, state, or local levels." For example, an FEC advisory opinion (the FEC’s interpretation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which it is charged with administering), established that foreign nationals may underwrite issue-oriented ads as long as they do not mention "candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election."..
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
"so nuclear" - bullshit.
A dozen tidal lagoon power stations around our coast would produce power that was:
a) consistent b) green c) emission free d) WASTE FREE e) have a capital cost of construction about a third that of nuclear f) produce electricity at about a 40-50% discount to the cost of nuclear g) have abandonment costs orders of magnitude lower than nuclear but h) as they last three times longer than a nuclear power station on the base case - probably many times that in practice - you won't need to abandon them.
And yet for reasons unknown we have decided not to use Tidal power even though we had more suitable locations than anywhere else in the world.
Any idea why that is?
Financial. I firmly believe that the era of tidal is coming because the other generating costs are going up. I also think there is a huge green blob that hates the idea of tidal lagoons as there will be impact on the natural world. Like nuclear, they want us not to use certain solutions to avoiding climate change, and I think would prefer us all to starve, neuter ourselves and go extinct.
Yes. Tidal lagoons would impact on the breeding ground of the lesser spotted whelk. = evil.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
To be fair, the point about lack of mention about what the young lady herself might think is reasonable. The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
As the world's population travel more and become more educated and integrated the ideas of national identity and particularly nationalism (with it's emphasis on exceptionalism - insert British, French Scottish, whatever), become to appear more absurd. It is a deliberately provocative post, and it proves people can have more than one allegiance, and for that reason it is a good post. The fact that it hasn't had more swivel-eyed frothing from right wingers who want to make themselves look silly is a little disappointing, but it might just be that there are not too many Col Blimps with LinkedIn accounts.
My daughter's school recently had sports day, postponed from the end of last year so parents could come without restrictions.
First to third in every event got a sticker, at the end of the day my daughter asked why some of her friends got lots of stickers and she didn't get any. But she understood that she didn't win the race and that's ok. We were proud of her that she tried her best even if she didn't win the race.
My primary school had an "all must get prizes" mentality and it's unhealthy. I'm glad that her school doesn't and I'm hoping it's something schools have put behind them.
It's incredible that some people think "all must get prizes" should apply to democracy too. If the likes of UKIP lose every race they compete in, then they lost fair and square. Maybe they should work to try and win next time, not change the system so all get prizes just for taking part?
Is democracy a sport? I guess on a site about gambling on it like a sport, it might seem that way.
Yes. Hence the term First Past The Post.
That doesn't mean you have to back "your team" through thick and thin though but some people do of course.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It should also be pointed out FPTP does not always benefit the Tories here either.
Eg in February 1974 Heath's Tories won the popular vote but Wilson's Labour won most seats.
In 2005 too Howard's Tories won the popular vote in England with 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour but Blair's Labour still comfortably won most seats in England with 286 to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Our HY is absolutely right on this. The present voting system is unfair to Conservatives as well.
How many Conservatives councillors are there today in Liverpool, for example, or Manchester? And how many would we expect is the number of councillors more or less corresponded to the overall Conservative vote? For that matter, when was a Conservative voice last heard in the council chambers of Liverpool and Manchester?
The fact is that the Conservatives represent a significant point of view, and it is outrageous that this is not reflected in the political discussions in certain parts of the country.
Who cares which political party it's "fair" to - surely the point of an electoral system is to be fair to the voters ?
True, but is it not effectively the same thing ie fptp is not fair to the conservative voters in Liverpool
It is fair. They just lost fair and square.
No they didn't. You could easily get situations where in the towns party A gets a small majority of party B in all wards and outside of the town party C gets a small majority of party B in all the wards. So party B gets more votes and no seats and the two smaller parties split the council between them. How is that representative?
You can then rearrange the ward boundaries and get a completely different set of result. It is just a lottery.
Those Conservative voters in Liverpool (pick you own Lab/Con/LD dominated council) deserve fair representation.
A democracy isn't just about the winner taking all, it is about fair representation of the voters.
@Nigelb I withdraw my response to your post earlier. I realise from my last post that your point was a really spot on observation and my reply naive. What matters is not what is fair to the political party but what is fair to the voters.
I wouldn't call it naive, as it's a mindset which is very common in those who follow politics. I guess I'm slightly immune to it, as I'm not very enthusiastic about any of our political parties.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
To be fair, the point about lack of mention about what the young lady herself might think is reasonable. The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
As the world's population travel more and become more educated and integrated the ideas of national identity and particularly nationalism (with it's emphasis on exceptionalism - insert British, French Scottish, whatever), become to appear more absurd. It is a deliberately provocative post, and it proves people can have more than one allegiance, and for that reason it is a good post. The fact that it hasn't had more swivel-eyed frothing from right wingers who want to make themselves look silly is a little disappointing, but it might just be that there are not too many Col Blimps with LinkedIn accounts.
Do you advocate a single global state? If not, then you need to rethink your assumptions because that's the logic of your position.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
"so nuclear" - bullshit.
A dozen tidal lagoon power stations around our coast would produce power that was:
a) consistent b) green c) emission free d) WASTE FREE e) have a capital cost of construction about a third that of nuclear f) produce electricity at about a 40-50% discount to the cost of nuclear g) have abandonment costs orders of magnitude lower than nuclear but h) as they last three times longer than a nuclear power station on the base case - probably many times that in practice - you won't need to abandon them.
And yet for reasons unknown we have decided not to use Tidal power even though we had more suitable locations than anywhere else in the world.
Any idea why that is?
Financial. I firmly believe that the era of tidal is coming because the other generating costs are going up. I also think there is a huge green blob that hates the idea of tidal lagoons as there will be impact on the natural world. Like nuclear, they want us not to use certain solutions to avoiding climate change, and I think would prefer us all to starve, neuter ourselves and go extinct.
Evidence that the other generating costs are going up?
US numbers, but other renewables are what it is up against:
The last data I saw for the Wales proposals required subsidy for the best part of a century. May be getting there; not there yet.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
To be fair, the point about lack of mention about what the young lady herself might think is reasonable. The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
As the world's population travel more and become more educated and integrated the ideas of national identity and particularly nationalism (with it's emphasis on exceptionalism - insert British, French Scottish, whatever), become to appear more absurd. It is a deliberately provocative post, and it proves people can have more than one allegiance, and for that reason it is a good post. The fact that it hasn't had more swivel-eyed frothing from right wingers who want to make themselves look silly is a little disappointing, but it might just be that there are not too many Col Blimps with LinkedIn accounts.
Do you advocate a single global state? If not, then you need to rethink your assumptions because that's the logic of your position.
What would be the downsides of a single global state?
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
To be fair, the point about lack of mention about what the young lady herself might think is reasonable. The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
Thank you. And I'm sorry for being rude to you.
The reason this has riled me is that we've come a long way in moving past nationality = ethnicity, and it frustrates me that people pushing this line from a 'progressive' angle can't see that it can be used by the far-right the other way round too, whilst needlessly aggravating their own citizenry who cherish the inclusive and patriotic modern Britain we've painstakingly built in recent decades.
Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?
A question about that: will the Australians actually need to handle the fissionable material? With modern reactors having a 25+ year life, might they just send the boats back to the manufacturer for refuelling when the time comes?
Who the fuck knows? Delivering a completed reactor would still be an NPT violation I think.
It's all been left purposefully vague, like Brexit in 2016, so that all manner of hopes, dreams and fantasies (like building the submarines in the UK) can be projected onto its tabula rasa.
The only action I have seen is "have consulted very early with the IAEA".
Does it count as proliferation if they rent the reactors?
It's the IAEA annual meeting at the moment, so they are probably talking about it.
No, as there is a loophole in the Non Proliferation Treaty from the outset. it's bee an issue for decades: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/sp6/files/jnmm-philippe-2014.pdf There seems to have been a tacit understanding not to export nuclear subs (or it just hasn't been in the nuclear powers interests), until now.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It would be interesting to learn what Emma believes
I think I'd enjoy hearing from Emma on any subject but I sincerely hope she manages to stay out of politics so she can continue to focus on and enjoy her tennis.
What really pisses me off is people trying to exploit her success for their own political ends and attributing their own views to her. They seem to view her as a migrant first and a Brit second.
I find that insulting.
Thats what you get when stopping migration is and has been the singular political issue of this generation. People don't want migrants, especially those seen as low skilled and definitely don't want their kids. Until the kids grow up to become a world champion runner or tennis sensation.
Then they don't want migrant kids, but Mo / Emma are different. Its the same mindset as the "I don't like blacks but Frank Bruno is alright as he's world champion" comments you'd hear in the past. It'll never go away sadly.
How about - radical idea - we accept migrants as Brits if they self-identify as such. People like Emma Raducanu have a choice of nationalities and we should be delighted that they chose to be British. When people move to America for work so many of them naturalise - we could have been doing the same for the last few decades with Europeans instead of treating them with such disdain.
This old canard. Most people want controlled migration - neither no migration or uncontrolled migration.
Why is that so hard to understand?
People don’t want to understand they just want to apply their personal prejudices to a debate. Migration is not a binary all or nothing choice. People support migration. During the referendum The leave campaign made it clear they would rather have skilled migrants from commonwealth countries than unskilled migrants from the EU. It was the controlled element some people wilfully misrepresent.
My daughter's school recently had sports day, postponed from the end of last year so parents could come without restrictions.
First to third in every event got a sticker, at the end of the day my daughter asked why some of her friends got lots of stickers and she didn't get any. But she understood that she didn't win the race and that's ok. We were proud of her that she tried her best even if she didn't win the race.
My primary school had an "all must get prizes" mentality and it's unhealthy. I'm glad that her school doesn't and I'm hoping it's something schools have put behind them.
It's incredible that some people think "all must get prizes" should apply to democracy too. If the likes of UKIP lose every race they compete in, then they lost fair and square. Maybe they should work to try and win next time, not change the system so all get prizes just for taking part?
Is democracy a sport? I guess on a site about gambling on it like a sport, it might seem that way.
Yes. Hence the term First Past The Post.
That doesn't mean you have to back "your team" through thick and thin though but some people do of course.
Or back them through thin and thin in the case of Newcastle
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
To be fair, the point about lack of mention about what the young lady herself might think is reasonable. The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
As the world's population travel more and become more educated and integrated the ideas of national identity and particularly nationalism (with it's emphasis on exceptionalism - insert British, French Scottish, whatever), become to appear more absurd. It is a deliberately provocative post, and it proves people can have more than one allegiance, and for that reason it is a good post. The fact that it hasn't had more swivel-eyed frothing from right wingers who want to make themselves look silly is a little disappointing, but it might just be that there are not too many Col Blimps with LinkedIn accounts.
No, that doesn't follow. I'd turn it around: it's the preponderance of national identities, languages, cultures and religions that make the world such a diverse and interesting place.
Why would we want to turn it into a uniform globalist mush?
Your argument makes sense in terms of appreciating other people's point of view and different ways of doing things, it doesn't make them irrelevant.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
Happy little soul, aren't you. I might, and do, disagree with you on occasion, but when I have actually been rude to you.
I'm not the one trying to abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends. I find that extremely rude, and the post itself is softly bigoted.
If you find it "helpful and refreshing" then, yes, I'm afraid you do have moronic views.
I certainly wouldn't try to ' abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends'. The fact is that as a result of globalisation she's got a very diverse background, and seeing that recognised is good. I find it quite amusing to see various nationalists tying themselves in knots trying to 'claim' her.
Who are these "nationalists" you speak of that are trying to "claim" her? You mean people celebrating the fact that someone British who's proudly competing as a Briton has secured a British win? Because if you do, then you're saying most of the population here are "nationalist" on the basis that someone with mixed ancestry must always be seen as a migrant first, and a Briton second. I find that offensive.
The only ones doing the claiming here are the softly-bigoted progressive Left.
I went to an international school. My sister was born in Canada. My parents were born in India. I have half-British/half-Columbian cousins. My Uncle lives in Australia. My other cousin married a Kenyan lady. My wife is Bulgarian. My daughter is British, but with Bulgarian ancestry too, and I have other family members who married fellow Britons too.
It might surprise you to we all celebrated Emma's win, and we all have an affection for the UK and common roots here too.
There's nothing exclusive or anachronistic about national identity, and long may it remain so.
I think we are beginning to dance around the head of a pin. I agree that 'There's nothing exclusive or anachronistic about national identity', provided that it doesn't lead to hostility to those whose national identity is different. My back story isn't as cosmopolitan as yours, but I've got relations in other countries and both my sons spent part of their Uni courses outside the UK.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
To be fair, the point about lack of mention about what the young lady herself might think is reasonable. The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
As the world's population travel more and become more educated and integrated the ideas of national identity and particularly nationalism (with it's emphasis on exceptionalism - insert British, French Scottish, whatever), become to appear more absurd. It is a deliberately provocative post, and it proves people can have more than one allegiance, and for that reason it is a good post. The fact that it hasn't had more swivel-eyed frothing from right wingers who want to make themselves look silly is a little disappointing, but it might just be that there are not too many Col Blimps with LinkedIn accounts.
Do you advocate a single global state? If not, then you need to rethink your assumptions because that's the logic of your position.
What would be the downsides of a single global state?
I guess it would be the difficulty of maintaining a proper degree of understanding of local needs at the central level. The necessary devolution of responsibility would probably make it start to look remarkably like the current set of nation states and local fiefdoms we have now, but from a top-down rather than middle-out starting point.
My daughter's school recently had sports day, postponed from the end of last year so parents could come without restrictions.
First to third in every event got a sticker, at the end of the day my daughter asked why some of her friends got lots of stickers and she didn't get any. But she understood that she didn't win the race and that's ok. We were proud of her that she tried her best even if she didn't win the race.
My primary school had an "all must get prizes" mentality and it's unhealthy. I'm glad that her school doesn't and I'm hoping it's something schools have put behind them.
It's incredible that some people think "all must get prizes" should apply to democracy too. If the likes of UKIP lose every race they compete in, then they lost fair and square. Maybe they should work to try and win next time, not change the system so all get prizes just for taking part?
Is democracy a sport? I guess on a site about gambling on it like a sport, it might seem that way.
Yes. Hence the term First Past The Post.
That doesn't mean you have to back "your team" through thick and thin though but some people do of course.
Or back them through thin and thin in the case of Newcastle
Or back them through thick and thick in the case of [that's enough ~ ed]
Mr. Foremain, national identities are no small thing.
Deride them if you like, but what do you have without a nation?
And if you replace the European nations with the EU, all you've done is make another nation.
I don't deride them, I am very proud to be English, and British with part Irish heritage. It makes me what I am. I have never been bothered to call myself "European" like some of my continental friends. I feel no need to wrap myself in a flag, because quite frankly, without going into details I have done more for my country than many, but a lot less than some.
What I dislike is divisive small minded nationalism. Anyone frothing at that post is quite simply small minded. There is logic in it and anyone offended really needs to travel a bit more.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
To be fair, the point about lack of mention about what the young lady herself might think is reasonable. The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
As the world's population travel more and become more educated and integrated the ideas of national identity and particularly nationalism (with it's emphasis on exceptionalism - insert British, French Scottish, whatever), become to appear more absurd. It is a deliberately provocative post, and it proves people can have more than one allegiance, and for that reason it is a good post. The fact that it hasn't had more swivel-eyed frothing from right wingers who want to make themselves look silly is a little disappointing, but it might just be that there are not too many Col Blimps with LinkedIn accounts.
Do you advocate a single global state? If not, then you need to rethink your assumptions because that's the logic of your position.
What would be the downsides of a single global state?
I guess it would be the difficulty of maintaining a proper degree of understanding of local needs at the central level. The necessary devolution of responsibility would probably make it start to look remarkably like the current set of nation states and local fiefdoms we have now, but from a top-down rather than middle-out starting point.
To me, the biggest problem with One World Government is what happens if Donald Trump Part Deux (or worse) gets elected...
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
To be fair, the point about lack of mention about what the young lady herself might think is reasonable. The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
As the world's population travel more and become more educated and integrated the ideas of national identity and particularly nationalism (with it's emphasis on exceptionalism - insert British, French Scottish, whatever), become to appear more absurd. It is a deliberately provocative post, and it proves people can have more than one allegiance, and for that reason it is a good post. The fact that it hasn't had more swivel-eyed frothing from right wingers who want to make themselves look silly is a little disappointing, but it might just be that there are not too many Col Blimps with LinkedIn accounts.
Do you advocate a single global state? If not, then you need to rethink your assumptions because that's the logic of your position.
No, no, and no. I leave changing assumptions and turning logic on its head to experts like yourself.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
Happy little soul, aren't you. I might, and do, disagree with you on occasion, but when I have actually been rude to you.
I'm not the one trying to abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends. I find that extremely rude, and the post itself is softly bigoted.
If you find it "helpful and refreshing" then, yes, I'm afraid you do have moronic views.
I certainly wouldn't try to ' abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends'. The fact is that as a result of globalisation she's got a very diverse background, and seeing that recognised is good. I find it quite amusing to see various nationalists tying themselves in knots trying to 'claim' her.
Who are these "nationalists" you speak of that are trying to "claim" her? You mean people celebrating the fact that someone British who's proudly competing as a Briton has secured a British win? Because if you do, then you're saying most of the population here are "nationalist" on the basis that someone with mixed ancestry must always be seen as a migrant first, and a Briton second. I find that offensive.
The only ones doing the claiming here are the softly-bigoted progressive Left.
I went to an international school. My sister was born in Canada. My parents were born in India. I have half-British/half-Columbian cousins. My Uncle lives in Australia. My other cousin married a Kenyan lady. My wife is Bulgarian. My daughter is British, but with Bulgarian ancestry too, and I have other family members who married fellow Britons too.
It might surprise you to we all celebrated Emma's win, and we all have an affection for the UK and common roots here too.
There's nothing exclusive or anachronistic about national identity, and long may it remain so.
I think we are beginning to dance around the head of a pin. I agree that 'There's nothing exclusive or anachronistic about national identity', provided that it doesn't lead to hostility to those whose national identity is different. My back story isn't as cosmopolitan as yours, but I've got relations in other countries and both my sons spent part of their Uni courses outside the UK.
Thanks. My background is very imperial, actually.
Both my grandparents served in the Indian Army, and my two Uncles (different sides of the family) in the RAN and the Canadian Army, as well as my cousin in the British Army. So we feel strong links to India, Australia and Canada, as well as the UK - several of us have little time for the EU but lots for the Commonwealth.
It's amazing how much has changed in just one lifetime, but there are lots of shared bonds and values there still too.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
"so nuclear" - bullshit.
A dozen tidal lagoon power stations around our coast would produce power that was:
a) consistent b) green c) emission free d) WASTE FREE e) have a capital cost of construction about a third that of nuclear f) produce electricity at about a 40-50% discount to the cost of nuclear g) have abandonment costs orders of magnitude lower than nuclear but h) as they last three times longer than a nuclear power station on the base case - probably many times that in practice - you won't need to abandon them.
And yet for reasons unknown we have decided not to use Tidal power even though we had more suitable locations than anywhere else in the world.
Any idea why that is?
Financial. I firmly believe that the era of tidal is coming because the other generating costs are going up. I also think there is a huge green blob that hates the idea of tidal lagoons as there will be impact on the natural world. Like nuclear, they want us not to use certain solutions to avoiding climate change, and I think would prefer us all to starve, neuter ourselves and go extinct.
"neuter ourselves and go extinct."
Now we're talking!
Definitely the best option for the planet.
In some ways yes - a return to the days before man, and allow the natural world to go on about its natural way for ever, or until the heat death of the exploding sun. The sadness would be no-one to see the beauty or record things passing. How many species that have walked the earth are now extinct? Vitrtually all of them, and only we know. Does you dog care for a nice sunset, or the delicate shape of a dahlia? Does a fish wonder what came before, or after?
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
Happy little soul, aren't you. I might, and do, disagree with you on occasion, but when I have actually been rude to you.
I'm not the one trying to abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends. I find that extremely rude, and the post itself is softly bigoted.
If you find it "helpful and refreshing" then, yes, I'm afraid you do have moronic views.
I certainly wouldn't try to ' abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends'. The fact is that as a result of globalisation she's got a very diverse background, and seeing that recognised is good. I find it quite amusing to see various nationalists tying themselves in knots trying to 'claim' her.
Who are these "nationalists" you speak of that are trying to "claim" her? You mean people celebrating the fact that someone British who's proudly competing as a Briton has secured a British win? Because if you do, then you're saying most of the population here are "nationalist" on the basis that someone with mixed ancestry must always be seen as a migrant first, and a Briton second. I find that offensive.
The only ones doing the claiming here are the softly-bigoted progressive Left.
I went to an international school. My sister was born in Canada. My parents were born in India. I have half-British/half-Columbian cousins. My Uncle lives in Australia. My other cousin married a Kenyan lady. My wife is Bulgarian. My daughter is British, but with Bulgarian ancestry too, and I have other family members who married fellow Britons too.
It might surprise you to we all celebrated Emma's win, and we all have an affection for the UK and common roots here too.
There's nothing exclusive or anachronistic about national identity, and long may it remain so.
Linkedin = woke propoganda feed. It is only good for professional news, it is not a good gauge of public opinion.
However, national identity is rooted very deeply in the human psyche. It cannot be deconstructed to nothing as Prof Gianosso and his fellow woke propogandists desperately hope. Nationalism is very much alive, particularly in supposedly progressive countries. Look at Scotland for example. There is a definite birther movement there, that has in the past revealed itself in comments on this website.
My own life experience living in supposedly progressive european countries (and not really amongst the woke elite) is that Nationalism is very much in existence, and that I would be accepted as a guest but would never be regarded as one of them.
In the end I have come to believe that Britain is unique in being able to successfully absorb immigrants within its national identity; but it is the exception rather than the rule; a historical abberation. It is this quality that many people around the world admire. This realisation was a turning point - it made me proud to be British.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
To be fair, the point about lack of mention about what the young lady herself might think is reasonable. The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
As the world's population travel more and become more educated and integrated the ideas of national identity and particularly nationalism (with it's emphasis on exceptionalism - insert British, French Scottish, whatever), become to appear more absurd. It is a deliberately provocative post, and it proves people can have more than one allegiance, and for that reason it is a good post. The fact that it hasn't had more swivel-eyed frothing from right wingers who want to make themselves look silly is a little disappointing, but it might just be that there are not too many Col Blimps with LinkedIn accounts.
Do you advocate a single global state? If not, then you need to rethink your assumptions because that's the logic of your position.
What would be the downsides of a single global state?
I guess it would be the difficulty of maintaining a proper degree of understanding of local needs at the central level. The necessary devolution of responsibility would probably make it start to look remarkably like the current set of nation states and local fiefdoms we have now, but from a top-down rather than middle-out starting point.
To me, the biggest problem with One World Government is what happens if Donald Trump Part Deux (or worse) gets elected...
There's a heck of an upheaval while all the Regional Proconsuls (or whatever we call them) decide where their loyalties lie.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It would be interesting to learn what Emma believes
I think I'd enjoy hearing from Emma on any subject but I sincerely hope she manages to stay out of politics so she can continue to focus on and enjoy her tennis.
What really pisses me off is people trying to exploit her success for their own political ends and attributing their own views to her. They seem to view her as a migrant first and a Brit second.
I find that insulting.
Thats what you get when stopping migration is and has been the singular political issue of this generation. People don't want migrants, especially those seen as low skilled and definitely don't want their kids. Until the kids grow up to become a world champion runner or tennis sensation.
Then they don't want migrant kids, but Mo / Emma are different. Its the same mindset as the "I don't like blacks but Frank Bruno is alright as he's world champion" comments you'd hear in the past. It'll never go away sadly.
How about - radical idea - we accept migrants as Brits if they self-identify as such. People like Emma Raducanu have a choice of nationalities and we should be delighted that they chose to be British. When people move to America for work so many of them naturalise - we could have been doing the same for the last few decades with Europeans instead of treating them with such disdain.
This old canard. Most people want controlled migration - neither no migration or uncontrolled migration.
Why is that so hard to understand?
People don’t want to understand they just want to apply their personal prejudices to a debate. Migration is not a binary all or nothing choice. People support migration. During the referendum The leave campaign made it clear they would rather have skilled migrants from commonwealth countries than unskilled migrants from the EU. It was the controlled element some people wilfully misrepresent.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It's a bit wanky but also seems fundamentally true. Some people like to put themselves in boxes, and to put other people in boxes. Others don't. Right now the putting people in boxes crowd is fighting a pretty successful rear-guard action, but I suspect and hope that in the long run they will lose. The future is global, and the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to embrace that.
Woah, hold on. The Left *love* to put people in boxes, provided it's a race, gender, or sexuality box. In fact, that's accelerated: what they hate is the national identity box, and to a lesser extent the religious box, as they view it as false consciousness.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
I think I agree with all of that, but maybe my reading of the thing you quoted is different from yours. I read it as saying that people can have multiple and overlapping identities like you say, and to claim that someone like Raducanu is 100% one thing is kind of pointless. She has links to a number of countries, like a lot of people do. Not knowing her personally or having heard her opine on the subject, but knowing other young people in SE London with parental links outside the UK and/or born outside the UK, I would assume she identifies most with the UK. (This is why I disagree strongly with the policy of stripping people of UK citizenship based on sometimes tenuous links to their countries, incidentally). Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
He literally titles his post the "illusion of nations". He then ends it by saying "national identities are fading" and that Emma is "the future of humankind".
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
To be fair, the point about lack of mention about what the young lady herself might think is reasonable. The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
As the world's population travel more and become more educated and integrated the ideas of national identity and particularly nationalism (with it's emphasis on exceptionalism - insert British, French Scottish, whatever), become to appear more absurd. It is a deliberately provocative post, and it proves people can have more than one allegiance, and for that reason it is a good post. The fact that it hasn't had more swivel-eyed frothing from right wingers who want to make themselves look silly is a little disappointing, but it might just be that there are not too many Col Blimps with LinkedIn accounts.
You claim to be against nationalism but you seem to be an extremely ardent nationalist yourself. Just a European nationalist.
Yesterday you quoted Thatcher referring to getting free trade with the world's richest nations, richer even than the USA, but when it was pointed out that in the interceding decades that had changed and the richest nations and people of the world aren't European anymore and we should embrace the globe not a parochial part of it ... That doesn't compute for you.
You're every bit as self righteous a nationalist as malcolmg. Rude to anyone who sees the world differently. You've simply embraced Europe as your nation instead of Scotland.
The world is a very big place. Much bigger than England, Scotland or Europe.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It would be interesting to learn what Emma believes
I think I'd enjoy hearing from Emma on any subject but I sincerely hope she manages to stay out of politics so she can continue to focus on and enjoy her tennis.
What really pisses me off is people trying to exploit her success for their own political ends and attributing their own views to her. They seem to view her as a migrant first and a Brit second.
I find that insulting.
Thats what you get when stopping migration is and has been the singular political issue of this generation. People don't want migrants, especially those seen as low skilled and definitely don't want their kids. Until the kids grow up to become a world champion runner or tennis sensation.
Then they don't want migrant kids, but Mo / Emma are different. Its the same mindset as the "I don't like blacks but Frank Bruno is alright as he's world champion" comments you'd hear in the past. It'll never go away sadly.
How about - radical idea - we accept migrants as Brits if they self-identify as such. People like Emma Raducanu have a choice of nationalities and we should be delighted that they chose to be British. When people move to America for work so many of them naturalise - we could have been doing the same for the last few decades with Europeans instead of treating them with such disdain.
This old canard. Most people want controlled migration - neither no migration or uncontrolled migration.
Why is that so hard to understand?
I entirely get it! Its just that most people don't. They might say "I want controlled migration" but when you then ask which migrants they want to keep they can't answer you. Nor can the government, as the "let people in that we need" argument is being ignored for care homes factories tourism and logistics.
I specifically mentioned kids. The "old canard" is the anti-migration argument that foreign kids block up school places and are a burden. Emma Raducanu was 2. We like her because she's a British tennis sensation. But how do we know which migrant kids can be the same and which will be a burden?
When we aren't letting people in even when we need them, how can you say "controlled migration" is relevant when we're talking about a 2 year old? How do we know if the child of the migrant we don't want is the next Sajid Javid or not?
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
"so nuclear" - bullshit.
A dozen tidal lagoon power stations around our coast would produce power that was:
a) consistent b) green c) emission free d) WASTE FREE e) have a capital cost of construction about a third that of nuclear f) produce electricity at about a 40-50% discount to the cost of nuclear g) have abandonment costs orders of magnitude lower than nuclear but h) as they last three times longer than a nuclear power station on the base case - probably many times that in practice - you won't need to abandon them.
And yet for reasons unknown we have decided not to use Tidal power even though we had more suitable locations than anywhere else in the world.
Any idea why that is?
Financial. I firmly believe that the era of tidal is coming because the other generating costs are going up. I also think there is a huge green blob that hates the idea of tidal lagoons as there will be impact on the natural world. Like nuclear, they want us not to use certain solutions to avoiding climate change, and I think would prefer us all to starve, neuter ourselves and go extinct.
Evidence that the other generating costs are going up?
US numbers, but other renewables are what it is up against:
The last data I saw for the Wales proposals required subsidy for the best part of a century. May be getting there; not there yet.
Should really compare with methods that are always available, as tidal is pretty predictable. Solar and wind are great, but do have weaknesses when the wind don't blow and the sun is below par. Solar is better on hot countries, and has been suggested is ideal for running air con, partly as the reason its needed is the sun...
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most Republican voters believe the election was stolen from Trump? Is anyone going to be able to change their mind on this? 14/1 may be generous but at the moment a Trump or Trumpian candidate looks likely.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
Happy little soul, aren't you. I might, and do, disagree with you on occasion, but when I have actually been rude to you.
I'm not the one trying to abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends. I find that extremely rude, and the post itself is softly bigoted.
If you find it "helpful and refreshing" then, yes, I'm afraid you do have moronic views.
I certainly wouldn't try to ' abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends'. The fact is that as a result of globalisation she's got a very diverse background, and seeing that recognised is good. I find it quite amusing to see various nationalists tying themselves in knots trying to 'claim' her.
Who are these "nationalists" you speak of that are trying to "claim" her? You mean people celebrating the fact that someone British who's proudly competing as a Briton has secured a British win? Because if you do, then you're saying most of the population here are "nationalist" on the basis that someone with mixed ancestry must always be seen as a migrant first, and a Briton second. I find that offensive.
The only ones doing the claiming here are the softly-bigoted progressive Left.
I went to an international school. My sister was born in Canada. My parents were born in India. I have half-British/half-Columbian cousins. My Uncle lives in Australia. My other cousin married a Kenyan lady. My wife is Bulgarian. My daughter is British, but with Bulgarian ancestry too, and I have other family members who married fellow Britons too.
It might surprise you to we all celebrated Emma's win, and we all have an affection for the UK and common roots here too.
There's nothing exclusive or anachronistic about national identity, and long may it remain so.
Linkedin = woke propoganda feed. It is only good for professional news, it is not a good gauge of public opinion.
However, national identity is rooted very deeply in the human psyche. It cannot be deconstructed to nothing as Prof Gianosso and his fellow woke propogandists desperately hope. Nationalism is very much alive, particularly in supposedly progressive countries. Look at Scotland for example. There is a definite birther movement there, that has in the past revealed itself in comments on this website.
My own life experience living in supposedly progressive european countries (and not really amongst the woke elite) is that Nationalism is very much in existence, and that I would be accepted as a guest but would never be regarded as one of them.
In the end I have come to believe that Britain is unique in being able to successfully absorb immigrants within its national identity; but it is the exception rather than the rule; a historical abberation. It is this quality that many people around the world admire. This realisation was a turning point - it made me proud to be British.
Yes, I agree. Good post.
I think it's also the case on LinkedIn that those who disagree (like me) simply don't say anything. To do so would be to risk a pile on that would probably be fatal to my professional career, and it would be broadcast to your whole network at the same time.
Comments
2. Working as intended. Every area gets the MP they chose.
3. So? They should do better and appeal for more votes next time then. If they do they can win.
4. If that's what the public votes for across the country then fair enough.
5. It's not neutered. It's what the people chose and it does its job. If the government strays from the confidence of a majority of MPs it fails, see 2017-19 for instance.
A dozen tidal lagoon power stations around our coast would produce power that was:
a) consistent
b) green
c) emission free
d) WASTE FREE
e) have a capital cost of construction about a third that of nuclear
f) produce electricity at about a 40-50% discount to the cost of nuclear
g) have abandonment costs orders of magnitude lower than nuclear but
h) as they last three times longer than a nuclear power station on the base case - probably many times that in practice - you won't need to abandon them.
The truth is that all children are the product of their parents beliefs and attitudes attached to the opportunities that were available to them.
All this talk about nationalism, it always seems to be portrayed in extremis. Like she must be British OR Romanian instead of having elements of both. It makes me think back to my dipshit brother-in-law who had a very negative view of foreigners as a yong man and voted BNP. I asked him which country he would deport himself to - Ireland or Spain. As the party he supported saw 2nd generation migrants like him as foreigners as not "pure bred anglo-saxon"
In Emma Raducanu's case she is a British citizen. Her ethnic heritage is something those nations can be proud of but she's chosen to be British and not pursue Romanian or Chinese nationality.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Any idea why that is?
I think it not unlikely that he goes for $$$$$, even if it is not a serious attempt.
What really pisses me off is people trying to exploit her success for their own political ends and attributing their own views to her. They seem to view her as a migrant first and a Brit second.
I find that insulting.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
I couldn't disagree with him more and have contempt for his views.
I bet he's an arsehole in real life.
The key balance would be how big a seat. As England is now set on "Metro Mayors" even in non-metro areas there is clearly a desire for some regional co-ordination. So why not copy Scotland - elect most members from a constituency and a smaller number elected by region.
Government is good at making a thing The Policy, in the permanent portions of the system (Civil Service etc). Once that is done (see Maggie and Global Warming, for example) the juggernaut proceeds. Anything against The Policy is crushed.
This includes facts that are not correct being used to judge The Opposition. One "fact" used against the tidal ponds was that they would require vast amounts of CO2 production to build. On closer enquiry, it becomes apparent that this assumes that they are built as giant, circular concrete dams. Which no-one has ever proposed, to my knowledge.
Related structure have been built (at a smaller scale) to protect oil rigs in shallow water in Canada against ice, for example - they are always rock/shingle berms.
People would be free to vote for the candidates representing UKIP and expect some of them to be elected. No list system, no vote for a party, always for an individual.
Every single MP in Parliament, without fail, is a winner. They all won their constituency and they were all the number one pick of their constituents.
Just because other constituencies chose a representative from a different party doesn't change that fact.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-on-trilateral-effort-of-australia-united-kingdom-and-united-states-on-nuclear-naval-propulsion
Does it count as proliferation if they rent the reactors?
It's the IAEA annual meeting at the moment, so they are probably talking about it.
If UKIP wanted representatives they'd have to convince the plurality of voters in a constituency to vote for them. They failed to do so.
But if your argument is that people can chose their identity then you can't fundamentally advocate they can pick their sex and gender identity but cannot do so for national identity as well because it's all a personal choice.
Personally I think national Identity will always be relevant and complimentary with others, as will religious identity, and I see no evidence whatever that will ever end. It's complex: people can have overlapping and complimentary identities, and emphasise some of them to greater degrees than others, but it's about to what and to whom you feel allegiance with - and it's absolutely not racially bound.
This post by this Professor isn't a progressive post; it's a highly regressive one.
Then they don't want migrant kids, but Mo / Emma are different. Its the same mindset as the "I don't like blacks but Frank Bruno is alright as he's world champion" comments you'd hear in the past. It'll never go away sadly.
How about - radical idea - we accept migrants as Brits if they self-identify as such. People like Emma Raducanu have a choice of nationalities and we should be delighted that they chose to be British. When people move to America for work so many of them naturalise - we could have been doing the same for the last few decades with Europeans instead of treating them with such disdain.
Actually, one was very taken by cricket when watching the Thai ladies in the Womens World Cup.
Trouble is that thanks to Covid there's been very little school sport for them recently.
First to third in every event got a sticker, at the end of the day my daughter asked why some of her friends got lots of stickers and she didn't get any. But she understood that she didn't win the race and that's ok. We were proud of her that she tried her best even if she didn't win the race.
My primary school had an "all must get prizes" mentality and it's unhealthy. I'm glad that her school doesn't and I'm hoping it's something schools have put behind them.
It's incredible that some people think "all must get prizes" should apply to democracy too. If the likes of UKIP lose every race they compete in, then they lost fair and square. Maybe they should work to try and win next time, not change the system so all get prizes just for taking part?
If you find it "helpful and refreshing" then, yes, I'm afraid you do have moronic views.
As to the electoral implications of that - ie formal vs "informal" influence, I think people are happy with FPTP and while it may be imperfect, it is our imperfect and as you say, all a party needs to do if it wants actually to be in government is to convince enough people in each constituency to vote for them.
You and I know they haven't. But they believe they have and won't be told otherwise. So we can change the electoral system to represent what people want and think they have, or keep getting these skewed national results.
Now we're talking!
Definitely the best option for the planet.
One of the problems in this country is that the local Party committee in a 'safe seat' is, effectively, the 'electorate'.
If an alternative candidate arose capable of winning 37% in those circumstances they'd be the winner. That they haven't just shows that the duly elected candidate was still the most popular after all.
https://www.my5.tv/on-board-britain-s-nuclear-submarine-trident
https://www.my5.tv/submarine-life-under-the-waves
Identity politics on the Left I tend to see more as a response to prejudice and barriers that specific groups face, rather than a desire to put people in boxes. I guess I can see how it might look like the latter, especially for people who think that things like institutional/structural racism aren't a thing. Whether it is ultimately helpful or not is a different question, but I think the motivation is understandable.
https://twitter.com/ESPNUK/status/1437038359575253003
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq1xM87Rk7w
That would raise another set of issues...
I find it quite amusing to see various nationalists tying themselves in knots trying to 'claim' her.
You can then rearrange the ward boundaries and get a completely different set of result. It is just a lottery.
Those Conservative voters in Liverpool (pick you own Lab/Con/LD dominated council) deserve fair representation.
A democracy isn't just about the winner taking all, it is about fair representation of the voters.
ETA Channel 5 has produced surprisingly good documentaries. It's not all Top 100 micro-celebrities.
At no point does he even make a hat-tip to what Emma herself might think - he simply co-opts his own to her to make his point.
His motivation is very clear.
Now that may or may not be a good thing but it's worth emphasising that FPTP can result in a sanitised voice that doesn't reflect significant parts of the electorate.
And it's possible that had UKIPs views been heard within Parliament the electorate may have voted differently when Brexit gave them the opportunity to vote "F*** the current system".
I want PR, but favour the simplicity of d'Hondt. The order of candidates for each party to be determined by primaries of party members.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/sp6/files/jnmm-philippe-2014.pdf
There seems to have been a tacit understanding not to export nuclear subs (or it just hasn't been in the nuclear powers interests), until now.
The oldest of my half-Thai grandchildren, at 15, is starting to think seriously about her heritages.
The only ones doing the claiming here are the softly-bigoted progressive Left.
I went to an international school. My sister was born in Canada. My parents were born in India. I have half-British/half-Columbian cousins. My Uncle lives in Australia. My other cousin married a Kenyan lady. My wife is Bulgarian. My daughter is British, but with Bulgarian ancestry too, and I have other family members who married fellow Britons too.
It might surprise you to we all celebrated Emma's win, and we all have an affection for the UK and common roots here too.
There's nothing exclusive or anachronistic about national identity, and long may it remain so.
Because FPTP ensures we get big tent politics not homogeneity, so the major parties need to appeal to other strands of view in order to continue to win or they'll lose and be displaced.
An irony is that PR can sanitise politics. Because under PR its possible that UKIP would be elected as a minority but be political "untouchables" nobody aligns with and so despite Brexit being a view of the majority of the nation we might have ended up with them being excluded as the Tories may not have been seeking to win those votes anymore. And needing to be more loyal to the whip due to the much greater power parties have over MPs in PR.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Foreign nationals are allowed to undertake some political actions in the U.S., as long as those actions are not "connected with any election to political office at the federal, state, or local levels." For example, an FEC advisory opinion (the FEC’s interpretation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which it is charged with administering), established that foreign nationals may underwrite issue-oriented ads as long as they do not mention "candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election."..
That doesn't mean you have to back "your team" through thick and thin though but some people do of course.
US numbers, but other renewables are what it is up against:
The last data I saw for the Wales proposals required subsidy for the best part of a century. May be getting there; not there yet.
Deride them if you like, but what do you have without a nation?
And if you replace the European nations with the EU, all you've done is make another nation.
The reason this has riled me is that we've come a long way in moving past nationality = ethnicity, and it frustrates me that people pushing this line from a 'progressive' angle can't see that it can be used by the far-right the other way round too, whilst needlessly aggravating their own citizenry who cherish the inclusive and patriotic modern Britain we've painstakingly built in recent decades.
Why would we want to turn it into a uniform globalist mush?
Your argument makes sense in terms of appreciating other people's point of view and different ways of doing things, it doesn't make them irrelevant.
https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/status/1440235635285979136?s=20
What I dislike is divisive small minded nationalism. Anyone frothing at that post is quite simply small minded. There is logic in it and anyone offended really needs to travel a bit more.
Both my grandparents served in the Indian Army, and my two Uncles (different sides of the family) in the RAN and the Canadian Army, as well as my cousin in the British Army. So we feel strong links to India, Australia and Canada, as well as the UK - several of us have little time for the EU but lots for the Commonwealth.
It's amazing how much has changed in just one lifetime, but there are lots of shared bonds and values there still too.
However, national identity is rooted very deeply in the human psyche. It cannot be deconstructed to nothing as Prof Gianosso and his fellow woke propogandists desperately hope. Nationalism is very much alive, particularly in supposedly progressive countries. Look at Scotland for example. There is a definite birther movement there, that has in the past revealed itself in comments on this website.
My own life experience living in supposedly progressive european countries (and not really amongst the woke elite) is that Nationalism is very much in existence, and that I would be accepted as a guest but would never be regarded as one of them.
In the end I have come to believe that Britain is unique in being able to successfully absorb immigrants within its national identity; but it is the exception rather than the rule; a historical abberation. It is this quality that many people around the world admire. This realisation was a turning point - it made me proud to be British.
Some didn't want any migration at all!
Yesterday you quoted Thatcher referring to getting free trade with the world's richest nations, richer even than the USA, but when it was pointed out that in the interceding decades that had changed and the richest nations and people of the world aren't European anymore and we should embrace the globe not a parochial part of it ... That doesn't compute for you.
You're every bit as self righteous a nationalist as malcolmg. Rude to anyone who sees the world differently. You've simply embraced Europe as your nation instead of Scotland.
The world is a very big place. Much bigger than England, Scotland or Europe.
I specifically mentioned kids. The "old canard" is the anti-migration argument that foreign kids block up school places and are a burden. Emma Raducanu was 2. We like her because she's a British tennis sensation. But how do we know which migrant kids can be the same and which will be a burden?
When we aren't letting people in even when we need them, how can you say "controlled migration" is relevant when we're talking about a 2 year old? How do we know if the child of the migrant we don't want is the next Sajid Javid or not?
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most Republican voters believe the election was stolen from Trump? Is anyone going to be able to change their mind on this? 14/1 may be generous but at the moment a Trump or Trumpian candidate looks likely.
I think it's also the case on LinkedIn that those who disagree (like me) simply don't say anything. To do so would be to risk a pile on that would probably be fatal to my professional career, and it would be broadcast to your whole network at the same time.
That's why I'm venting on here instead.