Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.
Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....
Priti Patel should should be ashamed
Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?
There's a word for that.
I am judging her as an anti immigrant Home Secretary who is the daughter of immigrants. My Great Grandparents arrived here at the turn of the last century and if I heard that they or their children fought tooth and claw to keep others from arriving I would be disgusted. But I'm not a Tory
If you accept that there is an argument against unlimited immigration (I'm not sure that you personally do accept this) then why does it matter who makes it? Those with the most to lose from immigration are often the most recently settled wave of immigrants - those without much in the way of assets and who are dependent on selling their labour, the value of which is driven down by the arrival of a new source of labour.
I would say the government policy makes sense if you think immigration is bad, at least at previous levels. But the argument that limiting immigration improves productivity - to allow wages to increase in real terms - isn't backed by the evidence. Probably the opposite. And shortages are just bad. You just can't spin this*
* Johnson is of course spinning this.
Of course you can spin shortages as being a good thing. Indeed I believe it.
Economics is ultimately all about the productive use of scarce resources. Shortages are a show of scarcity and allows even more productive use.
If resources weren't scarce, there'd never be any shortages, but nor would we have any need for economics.
Shortages mean things that are wanted, maybe vital, which previously happend, no longer happen. It means people no longer get the social care they had previously, businesses are dealing with shortages rather than productive work, employees are frustrated because they can't do their job properly. There isn't much of an upside.
That's because you're only looking at one side of the equation.
Shortage of labour raises the value and productivity of said labour, which raises their real wages and leads to real economic growth per capita.
The most productive businesses are able to affort the labour - the least productive businesses can't and die.
Creative destruction, its what leads to long term economic growth.
Labour shortage doesn't increase productivity or real wages. Consumers (all of us) are losers while some producers are winners and some are losers. All things being equal, winners and losers roughly balance out. Things aren't equal because shortages are bad in themselves, as I have said.
Not true. The losers are the companies who go out of business because they can't find labour - but those businesses will be the least productive, least-efficient businesses that we had. So by them going out of business we raise our overall productivity and income per capita.
Or businesses face up to the shortage and invest in productivity improvements so they don't have to go out of business, which boosts productivity, which raises our overall productivity and income per capita.
Either way, we win.
I think I detect a few flaws in your logic: businesses' relocating abroad because staying in the UK isn't cost effective; customers' turning to suppliers abroad because UK suppliers have been undercut. That's just for starters. Your pronouncements would have been outdated in the middle ages.
If the businesses that are less productive, less efficient and less competitive that we have a competitive disadvantage in relocate abroad then that is a good thing.
Ricardian economics, we should do what we have a competitive advantage in - and import that which we have a competitive disadvantage in.
Your anti-import, anti-abroad mercantilism would have been quite appropriate in the middle ages. But we've moved on from then, try and catch up.
Ricardian economics requires an undistorted market does it not? Brexit has deliberately distorted the market by giving our foreign competitors advantages (eg. a huge pool of cheap labour) that we are now denied. As a market-distorter, all these economic theories you espouse simply crumble to dust in your hands. You need a new outlook and some further reading.
No that's not what it requires.
Those nations with a competitive advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour can take the shitty jobs that require cheap labour. We're better off without them. That's Ricardian economics - we can take the skilled jobs that have high value added that can pay a decent wage instead.
That only really works if transport costs are insignificant. Otherwise it makes sense for the items to be produced locally, one example is plastic boxes, little need to make them locally but transport costs (due to size) means you need to be incredibly unproductive for a local producer to not be competitive
Transport costs are insignificant for most things though.
Ironically including CO2 as well as ££££, if you are capable of shipping things on large containers then the cost of shipping them both in cash and CO2 halfway around the planet is utterly inconsequential.
Have you seen current container prices? $25,000 was 1 quote I've seen recently (completely insane but a demonstration of current supply chain issues with ships in the wrong places for multiple reasons).
A games importer was asked on the BBC yesterday how he was coping with the rocketing container prices and he held up 2 boxes, one near half the size of the other and said they redesigned their product packaging and instead of 13,000 in a container he gets 27,000
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non-citizens can, in some cases and some elections, vote in this country too. Just not in all elections and cases.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Are you opposed to the concept of citizenship?
No, I'm pointing out that the population contains non-citizens.
Given that you seem to be arguing that disenfranchising some of the population based on legal categories undermines a country's claim to being a democracy, how can you, as a democrat, support a distinction between citizen and non-citizen taxpayers in the franchise?
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
The map there generated from people's results does seem to show that the English are rightwingers apart from some of the Northerners. Very strong change at the Scottish/English boundary, amazingly so, despite what is often claimed on PB - even the Scottish rightwingers are different.
Stark contrast between Electoral Calculus and Political Compass results:
EC = Your Economic position is 41° Right, your National position is 2° International, and your Social position is 46° Liberal. You are economically strongly right-wing, nationally moderate, and strongly socially liberal
PC = -3.0 economic, -4.97 libertarian
So probably fairly close agreement on the libertarian streak, very different results on the economic.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Are you opposed to the concept of citizenship?
No, I'm pointing out that the population contains non-citizens.
Given that you seem to be arguing that disenfranchising some of the population based on legal categories undermines a country's claim to being a democracy, how can you, as a democrat, support a distinction between citizen and non-citizen taxpayers in the franchise?
I said that disenfranchising women prevents a country from being described as a democracy. I do not say that disenfranchising non-citizens has the same effect and you are wrong to infer it.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Stricly speaking nobody is a citizen of Scotland.
I didn't say they were, but the UK defines them as citizens of other countries and does not give them the vote.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
That's not true. Non-citizens cannot vote in every election in Scotland.
Political compass skews left on economics largely I think because the right wing questions are absolutist: e.g. something like "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" is something I suspect only about 10% of people would agree with, but if you answer disagree (as I did) hat marks you down as anti-free market.
Would be better if there were more nuanced takes such as "state intervention in markets can often cause distortions and reduce consumer choice" or "free markets often deliver a good outcome for humanity".
@Casino_Royale from last thread. Killing off the general discussion but on a separate note you seemed surprised that I thought I might be to the right of you on some things and asked for examples. Clearly it is difficult to give specifics without an in depth discussion but in general I get the impression you are a traditional Conservative, more along the lines of @HYUFD although not as traditional as him, whereas I am more along the lines of an Orange Booker. Although I have some humdinger arguments with @Philip_Thompson on many things my views are often in line with him, although maybe not quite as libertarian as him, I am very libertarian.
Have I judged that correctly?
I am often misjudged as being of the left because I attack the Conservatives often, but equally I don't support Labour. I have never voted Labour and I am 67 in a few weeks. I often feel traditional Conservatives come out with some staggering Socialist policies (not you, just in general).
Thanks. So, you're very free-market then I presume?
I consider myself to be a traditional shire Tory. I don't agree with anyone all of the time on anything but I think the poster on here that comes closest to my views is @Sean_F
Yep very free market and small state. Like Philip I would like to see a Universal Wage. I was a fan of this from the 90s when I first heard it put forward by a right wing think tank. That could eliminate most of the DWP and much of HMRC. Not a fan of BEIS either. Far to much interference in the marketplace. I would like to see more generic laws and much less specific laws on issues. I hate the government faffing around an issue with interference. If something should be run by the state (eg health and education) then do so, otherwise leave it to the market, with generic laws to protect the consumer from abuse.
I hate bureaucracy and state interference because they are useless at it, but accept it is needed, but as little as possible. Leave people to live their lives.
I am also very, very socially liberal.
I like SeanF a lot also, but I like the views of a range of people. I like TSE, Nigelb, IanB2, kinabalu etc so a wide selection across the spectrum
Does this come as a surprise? What did you think my views were? I won't be offended if you though I was a raving Socialist.
Thanks. Interesting.
It comes as a surprise because almost all the posts of yours I can recall relate to social issues, institutions and the nation state, and that is where the zeitgeist currently is in political debate and where I suspect we diverge.
Oh that is very interesting. I have no idea what you are referring to re social issues and institutions. What did you have in mind? I am not a fan of institutions generally and I think you are, but I would be surprised if we differed much on social issues. Can you elaborate please? This is very interesting.
Re nation state are you referring to my luke warm attachment to nations and my liking of the EU?
I have to say it comes as a surprise that is how I come across. I thought I would come across as an Orange Book liberal, but often our own perception are different to what others see.
I would love to know what @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD think I am with whom I have had many discussions.
I think that you and I can be quite similar in a lot of ways, though I'd put you down as slightly to the left of me.
One very good thing I saw in the earlier days of being online was the website Political Compass, though it was rather US-dominated, that broke views down to left & right on the X-axis and on the Y-axis was libertarianism (down) and authoritarianism (up). I've always been firmly in the bottom-right quadrant, I'd guess you'd be similar but maybe marginally to the left?
Be curious if people wanted to take the test and see where their results are. I've just done it again and mine are: Economic Left/Right: 4.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18
So, don't give me any more of your "I'm a libertarian" stuff, you authoritarian
I'm a lot more left on that scale than I expected. And maybe more libertarian. There were several questions here I would have chosen 'neither agree or disagree' had it been an option - if they were I'd maybe be more towards the centre on both scales.
I'm more libertarian than PT, too. Well, well. Though rather more to the left. My views seem to have changed even more as I grow still older.
I'm sure you (and I) are about to hit the 'I'm old enough to be a Unionist now' wall any day. Signs may include the name 'Nippy' creeping into conversation, deliberately picking out the UJ emblazoned foodstuffs at Morrisons and humming the R4 UK theme under one's breath.
It's striking that contrary to the myth on PB the SNP is a lot less authoritarian than almost anyone else - almost perfectly centrist. And there is an interesting contrast also between Labour and Slab at Holyrood: you can really see Messrs/Mdmes Sarwar and Baillie trying to be Tory lite (as are the LDs, too, tbf). Though the Tories swing inland themselves. The SNP hardly budge, and the SGs are rather more mainstream than the UK Greens.
Dullish centrists is unfortunately a fair description, fortunately that still means left of any of the main contenders. We all have a tendency to mythologise our opponents failings but the stories Yoons tell themselves about the SNP & Scotland are pretty self defeatingly hilarious. The tourists might have a minimal excuse but they seem terribly reluctant to admit that they may not be fully cognizant of the facts (aka experts).
Banana republic One party state Police state Authoritarian dictatorship Woke Marxist Socialist Fascist etc
I wonder if that's a factor in their parties' dire performances? If you're perpetually trying to defeat some other boogie man enemy rather than the one in front of you..
Especially when the bogey is on the end of your own nose - vide authoritarianism etc.
It also shows how the SGs and SNP could form an agreement much more easily than say the Brighton kind and Mr Davey's LDs (or for that matter Ms Swinson's).
OT but BTW - many thanks for recommending the Otto Prohaska novel. A curious combination of Svejk, Patrick O'Brian, Flann O'Brien and Porco Rosso - but I enjoyed it very much and have ordered the next two. I do like the idea of the railway station that was known by a number because they couldn't decide whether to call it by its German, Czech, Polish or Magyar name ...
Cool, glad you liked it (and hopefully them). Now the season for reading in front of a fire is coming upon us I may give them another go. Technical observations on Austro-Hungarian submarines (edit: though from memory Otto's sub was originally German?) and aircraft among other things always add interest in my experience!
Just to reassure you, some of his subs were pukka k.u.k. A-H!
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Are you opposed to the concept of citizenship?
No, I'm pointing out that the population contains non-citizens.
Given that you seem to be arguing that disenfranchising some of the population based on legal categories undermines a country's claim to being a democracy, how can you, as a democrat, support a distinction between citizen and non-citizen taxpayers in the franchise?
I said that disenfranchising women prevents a country from being described as a democracy. I do not say that disenfranchising non-citizens has the same effect and you are wrong to infer it.
Aren't you just reflecting the orthodoxy of your time? Perhaps in another 100 years, people will regard the concept of citizenship as a monstrous anachronism. That's the logic of globalism.
I think it's more that he can't have his cake and eat it (remember that for VAT purposes Jaffa cakes are cakes and not biscuits because they go hard when left in air, rather than turning soft).
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
That's not true. Non-citizens cannot vote in every election in Scotland.
Again, I didn't say they could vote in every election. Citizens of another country resident in Scotland can vote in Scottish elections (my country) but not in UK elections (the country of anyone who cares to describe it as such).
Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.
Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....
Priti Patel should should be ashamed
I think people holding political opinions just because of who their parents are most distasteful, whatever side they are on.
I vaguely recall an old study showing that your parents are the biggest factor determining how you vote. It would be interesting to see a modern survey.
The map there generated from people's results does seem to show that the English are rightwingers apart from some of the Northerners. Very strong change at the Scottish/English boundary, amazingly so, despite what is often claimed on PB - even the Scottish rightwingers are different.
Stark contrast between Electoral Calculus and Political Compass results:
EC = Your Economic position is 41° Right, your National position is 2° International, and your Social position is 46° Liberal. You are economically strongly right-wing, nationally moderate, and strongly socially liberal
PC = -3.0 economic, -4.97 libertarian
So probably fairly close agreement on the libertarian streak, very different results on the economic.
Yep, I'm 'mildly right wing' on EC, -4.0 on PC (which is well into the left side). Strongly globalist, strongly socially liberal on PC; -6.something on PC - much more consistent.
I guess we're (almost) all left wingers from a United States perspective. To be honest, I'm as surprised to be mildly right wing on EC as I was to be quite strongly left wing on PC.
Edit: I'm also not near any of the balls on the EC chart - might explain why I'm feeling a bit politically homeless.
It is a really interesting moment just afttr the Tory Party Conference.......
Up and down the country people will be comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency.
It's the column each person puts themselves into that will determine the result of next election.
It's the zeitgeist. Unknown at the moment but I've never felt more alienated to any party than I do towards to-days Tories.
LOL. Roger alienated from the Tories. Shock of the century. And, no, I won't be putting myself in some arbitrary Patel vs Rashford column to decide how I'll vote.
SNP trio top bill as Glasgow MSPs claim quarter of a million in expenses
Glasgow MSPs racked up an expenses bill of almost a quarter of a million pounds last year.....
The highest claim was from SNP MSP for Kelvin Sandra White, who ....claimed a total of £28,394. The bill included £1800 for Edinburgh hotels at up to £140 per night.....
The lowest claim of the city’s MSPs was from Adam Tomkins, Conservative MSP whose bill totalled £6,080.....
Second lowest was his Tory colleague Annie Wells, who billed for £8,498.
Political compass skews left on economics largely I think because the right wing questions are absolutist: e.g. something like "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" is something I suspect only about 10% of people would agree with, but if you answer disagree (as I did) hat marks you down as anti-free market.
Would be better if there were more nuanced takes such as "state intervention in markets can often cause distortions and reduce consumer choice" or "free markets often deliver a good outcome for humanity".
Are there graded options for your agreement? Because if I were asking "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" I would choose "somewhat agree" if it were available. If forced to choose between "agree" or "disagree" I would choose agree, because it's close enough.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Stricly speaking nobody is a citizen of Scotland.
Irish and "qualifying Commonwealth" citizens can vote in UK elections and English local elections.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
That's not true. Non-citizens cannot vote in every election in Scotland.
Again, I didn't say they could vote in every election. Citizens of another country resident in Scotland can vote in Scottish elections (my country) but not in UK elections (the country of anyone who cares to describe it as such).
Looks like that by US standards I am almost off the scale:
Economic Left/Right: -6.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72
Seems that way for almost all of us.
It’s crap, outdated and US-centric.
I just did the EC one and I hang global with the hard left, slightly left economically with the progressives, and very liberal out on my own. That dies seem a better fit.
Mid term polls bear no relation whatsoever to subsequent general election results.
Indeed. In April 2017 TMay's Tories had a 25% polling lead which was almost frittered away by polling day.
Lets hope and pray that history repeats itself. One of the most distasteful things I find with Tory politicians is that immigrants to this country and the sons and daughters of immigrants are viscerally anti immigration. It feeds the notion of the Tories being the nasty Party. I'm all right Jack is a very unpleasant look....
Priti Patel should should be ashamed
Are you judging Patel differently because of her ethnicity and background?
There's a word for that.
I am judging her as an anti immigrant Home Secretary who is the daughter of immigrants. My Great Grandparents arrived here at the turn of the last century and if I heard that they or their children fought tooth and claw to keep others from arriving I would be disgusted. But I'm not a Tory
If you accept that there is an argument against unlimited immigration (I'm not sure that you personally do accept this) then why does it matter who makes it? Those with the most to lose from immigration are often the most recently settled wave of immigrants - those without much in the way of assets and who are dependent on selling their labour, the value of which is driven down by the arrival of a new source of labour.
I would say the government policy makes sense if you think immigration is bad, at least at previous levels. But the argument that limiting immigration improves productivity - to allow wages to increase in real terms - isn't backed by the evidence. Probably the opposite. And shortages are just bad. You just can't spin this*
* Johnson is of course spinning this.
Of course you can spin shortages as being a good thing. Indeed I believe it.
Economics is ultimately all about the productive use of scarce resources. Shortages are a show of scarcity and allows even more productive use.
If resources weren't scarce, there'd never be any shortages, but nor would we have any need for economics.
Shortages mean things that are wanted, maybe vital, which previously happend, no longer happen. It means people no longer get the social care they had previously, businesses are dealing with shortages rather than productive work, employees are frustrated because they can't do their job properly. There isn't much of an upside.
That's because you're only looking at one side of the equation.
Shortage of labour raises the value and productivity of said labour, which raises their real wages and leads to real economic growth per capita.
The most productive businesses are able to affort the labour - the least productive businesses can't and die.
Creative destruction, its what leads to long term economic growth.
Labour shortage doesn't increase productivity or real wages. Consumers (all of us) are losers while some producers are winners and some are losers. All things being equal, winners and losers roughly balance out. Things aren't equal because shortages are bad in themselves, as I have said.
Not true. The losers are the companies who go out of business because they can't find labour - but those businesses will be the least productive, least-efficient businesses that we had. So by them going out of business we raise our overall productivity and income per capita.
Or businesses face up to the shortage and invest in productivity improvements so they don't have to go out of business, which boosts productivity, which raises our overall productivity and income per capita.
Either way, we win.
I think I detect a few flaws in your logic: businesses' relocating abroad because staying in the UK isn't cost effective; customers' turning to suppliers abroad because UK suppliers have been undercut. That's just for starters. Your pronouncements would have been outdated in the middle ages.
If the businesses that are less productive, less efficient and less competitive that we have a competitive disadvantage in relocate abroad then that is a good thing.
Ricardian economics, we should do what we have a competitive advantage in - and import that which we have a competitive disadvantage in.
Your anti-import, anti-abroad mercantilism would have been quite appropriate in the middle ages. But we've moved on from then, try and catch up.
Ricardian economics requires an undistorted market does it not? Brexit has deliberately distorted the market by giving our foreign competitors advantages (eg. a huge pool of cheap labour) that we are now denied. As a market-distorter, all these economic theories you espouse simply crumble to dust in your hands. You need a new outlook and some further reading.
No that's not what it requires.
Those nations with a competitive advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour can take the shitty jobs that require cheap labour. We're better off without them. That's Ricardian economics - we can take the skilled jobs that have high value added that can pay a decent wage instead.
That only really works if transport costs are insignificant. Otherwise it makes sense for the items to be produced locally, one example is plastic boxes, little need to make them locally but transport costs (due to size) means you need to be incredibly unproductive for a local producer to not be competitive
Transport costs are insignificant for most things though.
Ironically including CO2 as well as ££££, if you are capable of shipping things on large containers then the cost of shipping them both in cash and CO2 halfway around the planet is utterly inconsequential.
Have you seen current container prices? $25,000 was 1 quote I've seen recently (completely insane but a demonstration of current supply chain issues with ships in the wrong places for multiple reasons).
A games importer was asked on the BBC yesterday how he was coping with the rocketing container prices and he held up 2 boxes, one near half the size of the other and said they redesigned their product packaging and instead of 13,000 in a container he gets 27,000
I was very impressed at his innovation
There are plus sides to the energy/transportation costs rising - it will push greater efficiency in transportation and energy use.
Will achieve more than 100 XR/IB activists gluing themselves to trains and roads.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Non citizens can vote for my Local Council too just as they can vote for Sturgeon or anyone else in Holyrood Parish Council.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Are you opposed to the concept of citizenship?
No, I'm pointing out that the population contains non-citizens.
Given that you seem to be arguing that disenfranchising some of the population based on legal categories undermines a country's claim to being a democracy, how can you, as a democrat, support a distinction between citizen and non-citizen taxpayers in the franchise?
I said that disenfranchising women prevents a country from being described as a democracy. I do not say that disenfranchising non-citizens has the same effect and you are wrong to infer it.
Aren't you just reflecting the orthodoxy of your time? Perhaps in another 100 years, people will regard the concept of citizenship as a monstrous anachronism. That's the logic of globalism.
Yes, I am. As for the rest, who knows? I don't subscribe to Marxist concepts about the inevitability of future history, but things might turn out that way. It depends on what choices we make.
Interesting point about the lack of trans questions from @MaxPB – although that issue doesn't neatly divide on left/right lines. Lots of very leftwing radical feminists are opposed to self-ID, for example.
I think there would be a lot of people, like me, who can see both sides the argument and would find such questions interesting – but difficult – to answer.
Totally & utterly off topic but 'fact' needed for a story I'm writing. If DNA samples from a putative mother and son are sent for analysis, how long before the lab can/will confirm that they are in fact parent and child?
No Mr Dancer, I'm not out to compete with you.
This is 2 years old and presumably US based, but 2-10 working days.
SNP trio top bill as Glasgow MSPs claim quarter of a million in expenses
Glasgow MSPs racked up an expenses bill of almost a quarter of a million pounds last year.....
The highest claim was from SNP MSP for Kelvin Sandra White, who ....claimed a total of £28,394. The bill included £1800 for Edinburgh hotels at up to £140 per night.....
The lowest claim of the city’s MSPs was from Adam Tomkins, Conservative MSP whose bill totalled £6,080.....
Second lowest was his Tory colleague Annie Wells, who billed for £8,498.
Political compass skews left on economics largely I think because the right wing questions are absolutist: e.g. something like "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" is something I suspect only about 10% of people would agree with, but if you answer disagree (as I did) hat marks you down as anti-free market.
Would be better if there were more nuanced takes such as "state intervention in markets can often cause distortions and reduce consumer choice" or "free markets often deliver a good outcome for humanity".
Are there graded options for your agreement? Because if I were asking "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" I would choose "somewhat agree" if it were available. If forced to choose between "agree" or "disagree" I would choose agree, because it's close enough.
This is where how you chose to answer impacts your results. I chose a literal reading of the wording, and so, in the first example, the 'always' would force me into strongly disagreeing with the statement, even though I consider myself a free marketer.
I'm somewhere around -3 on economics and -7 on social, i.e. a classic Liberal given that -3 is probably more akin to economic centrism than the left.
There are few people in the country or world who share the same instincts, which is why parties with truly liberal/libertarian policies rarely do well. For all their cultural "modernity" both Blair's New Labour and Cameron and Osborne's Tories had a strong underpinning of centralising authoritarianism to them.
Political compass skews left on economics largely I think because the right wing questions are absolutist: e.g. something like "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" is something I suspect only about 10% of people would agree with, but if you answer disagree (as I did) hat marks you down as anti-free market.
Would be better if there were more nuanced takes such as "state intervention in markets can often cause distortions and reduce consumer choice" or "free markets often deliver a good outcome for humanity".
Are there graded options for your agreement? Because if I were asking "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" I would choose "somewhat agree" if it were available. If forced to choose between "agree" or "disagree" I would choose agree, because it's close enough.
It's agree or strongly agree, disagree or strongly disagree. Many questions really want to be answered "sometimes" or "it depends"
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Non citizens can vote for my Local Council too just as they can vote for Sturgeon or anyone else in Holyrood Parish Council.
I sense you're a little piqued cos that's when you start the UKIP stylee parish council guff. Scratch a man who voted for Farage..
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
After the 1867 Reform Act many politicians regarded the UK as essentially having become a democracy. It wasn’t, of course, but that was a common attitude.
I agree that a country can’t really be called a democracy until every adult has the franchise. I remember arguing in a undergraduate seminar on whether the early Commonwealth (before the Protectorate) was a democracy that it couldn’t have been as women were disenfranchised. IIRC my lecturer disagreed, arguing that as children aren’t enfranchised modern Britain cannot be a true democracy. My counter-argument was that such a disqualification is literally temporary, in that children will grow to be adults and receive the franchise, but a disqualification based on sex (or race for that matter in countries that had it) can never be overcome.
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -1.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
I've always hovered around the mid-point on "left/right" - this iteration slightly to the left of before, and consistently been libertarian.
I got Economic Left/Right -1.0. Social Libertarian/Authoritarian +0.56
Most PBers lean economically right but socially liberal.
Political Compass does generally tend to get left liberal results though in my experience because of the questions asked
By the results posted on here most PBers are all rabid socialists. Take yourself. Your +0.56 does not compensate your -1. You remain in the left half of the illustration.
It is a really interesting moment just afttr the Tory Party Conference.......
Up and down the country people will be comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency.
It's the column each person puts themselves into that will determine the result of next election.
It's the zeitgeist. Unknown at the moment but I've never felt more alienated to any party than I do towards to-days Tories.
LOL. Roger alienated from the Tories. Shock of the century. And, no, I won't be putting myself in some arbitrary Patel vs Rashford column to decide how I'll vote.
Interesting point about the lack of trans questions from @MaxPB – although that issue doesn't neatly divide on left/right lines. Lots of very leftwing radical feminists are opposed to self-ID, for example.
I think there would be a lot of people, like me, who can see both sides the argument and would find such questions interesting – but difficult – to answer.
And people like me, who would find the questions boring but also difficult to answer!
Political compass skews left on economics largely I think because the right wing questions are absolutist: e.g. something like "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" is something I suspect only about 10% of people would agree with, but if you answer disagree (as I did) hat marks you down as anti-free market.
Would be better if there were more nuanced takes such as "state intervention in markets can often cause distortions and reduce consumer choice" or "free markets often deliver a good outcome for humanity".
Are there graded options for your agreement? Because if I were asking "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" I would choose "somewhat agree" if it were available. If forced to choose between "agree" or "disagree" I would choose agree, because it's close enough.
It's agree or strongly agree, disagree or strongly disagree. Many questions really want to be answered "sometimes" or "it depends"
I think it is reasonable to impart a bit of common sense in grading your answers - it’s not rocket science after all, and if the question is about free markets and that’s your view then you strongly agree so that the appropriate viewpoint goes into the analysis. Taking the questions literally and nit licking over the wording is simply going to produce a false result.
If you really can’t decide then there ought to be a special category that you can go into, along with our PM.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Stricly speaking nobody is a citizen of Scotland.
Irish and "qualifying Commonwealth" citizens can vote in UK elections and English local elections.
Yes, people from the Commonwealth and Ireland can vote in all elections and before Brexit, people from the EU could vote in local elections only. Note that Cyprus and Malta are members of both the Commonwealth and the EU.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
After the 1867 Reform Act many politicians regarded the UK as essentially having become a democracy. It wasn’t, of course, but that was a common attitude.
I agree that a country can’t really be called a democracy until every adult has the franchise. I remember arguing in a undergraduate seminar on whether the early Commonwealth (before the Protectorate) was a democracy that it couldn’t have been as women were disenfranchised. IIRC my lecturer disagreed, arguing that as children aren’t enfranchised modern Britain cannot be a true democracy. My counter-argument was that such a disqualification is literally temporary, in that children will grow to be adults and receive the franchise, but a disqualification based on sex (or race for that matter in countries that had it) can never be overcome.
Didn't people with cervixes get the vote if they self identified as men?
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Non citizens can vote for my Local Council too just as they can vote for Sturgeon or anyone else in Holyrood Parish Council.
I sense you're a little piqued cos that's when you start the UKIP stylee parish council guff. Scratch a man who voted for Farage..
It's not my fault you Scots were too frit to become a real independent country in 2014. If you were really an independent country and not a part of the UK then you'd have no reason to want an Independence referendum. It's already been achieved and you can just cosplay at being independent.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
After the 1867 Reform Act many politicians regarded the UK as essentially having become a democracy. It wasn’t, of course, but that was a common attitude.
I agree that a country can’t really be called a democracy until every adult has the franchise. I remember arguing in a undergraduate seminar on whether the early Commonwealth (before the Protectorate) was a democracy that it couldn’t have been as women were disenfranchised. IIRC my lecturer disagreed, arguing that as children aren’t enfranchised modern Britain cannot be a true democracy. My counter-argument was that such a disqualification is literally temporary, in that children will grow to be adults and receive the franchise, but a disqualification based on sex (or race for that matter in countries that had it) can never be overcome.
Didn't people with cervixes get the vote if they self identified as men?
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Everyone has the vote in Russia today, but I'd argue that Britain was more democratic in the late 18th century than Russia is today.
It's a mistake to think of democracy as solely about multi-party elections and a wide franchise. There are so many more important aspects.
There are countries like Botswana where the ruling party has remained in power for decades, yet there are opposition parties, and the country has the rule of law and regularly conducts free and fair elections that are internationally seen to be so. It’s just that no credible opposition party that the electorate has any confidence in has ever arisen there. Is Botswana a democracy? Yes. I don’t think there’s any doubt it is.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
Russia could become an ideal tourist destination for covid sceptics, who are not afraid of going to a country where the epidemic is still raging, just one third of the population is vaccinated and very few people wear masks.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Everyone has the vote in Russia today, but I'd argue that Britain was more democratic in the late 18th century than Russia is today.
It's a mistake to think of democracy as solely about multi-party elections and a wide franchise. There are so many more important aspects.
There are countries like Botswana where the ruling party has remained in power for decades, yet there are opposition parties, and the country has the rule of law and regularly conducts free and fair elections that are internationally seen to be so. It’s just that no credible opposition party that the electorate has any confidence in has ever arisen there. Is Botswana a democracy? Yes. I don’t think there’s any doubt it is.
I always liked the oxymoronic idea of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party, which held unbroken power for 71 years (1929-2000)
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
After the 1867 Reform Act many politicians regarded the UK as essentially having become a democracy. It wasn’t, of course, but that was a common attitude.
I agree that a country can’t really be called a democracy until every adult has the franchise. I remember arguing in a undergraduate seminar on whether the early Commonwealth (before the Protectorate) was a democracy that it couldn’t have been as women were disenfranchised. IIRC my lecturer disagreed, arguing that as children aren’t enfranchised modern Britain cannot be a true democracy. My counter-argument was that such a disqualification is literally temporary, in that children will grow to be adults and receive the franchise, but a disqualification based on sex (or race for that matter in countries that had it) can never be overcome.
Just think how the availability of gender reassignment would have complicated the arguments about votes for women.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Non citizens can vote for my Local Council too just as they can vote for Sturgeon or anyone else in Holyrood Parish Council.
I sense you're a little piqued cos that's when you start the UKIP stylee parish council guff. Scratch a man who voted for Farage..
It's not my fault you Scots were too frit to become a real independent country in 2014. If you were really an independent country and not a part of the UK then you'd have no reason to want an Independence referendum. It's already been achieved and you can just cosplay at being independent.
So Phil did you give me a clue (with Embolden) yesterday as to why it is you are able to spend all day on PB.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Everyone has the vote in Russia today, but I'd argue that Britain was more democratic in the late 18th century than Russia is today.
It's a mistake to think of democracy as solely about multi-party elections and a wide franchise. There are so many more important aspects.
There are countries like Botswana where the ruling party has remained in power for decades, yet there are opposition parties, and the country has the rule of law and regularly conducts free and fair elections that are internationally seen to be so. It’s just that no credible opposition party that the electorate has any confidence in has ever arisen there. Is Botswana a democracy? Yes. I don’t think there’s any doubt it is.
I always liked the oxymoronic idea of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party, which held unbroken power for 71 years (1929-2000)
Hence the “institutional”! Although IIRC the PRI did use undemocratic means including outright vote-rigging to maintain its grip on power for much of that period.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Non citizens can vote for my Local Council too just as they can vote for Sturgeon or anyone else in Holyrood Parish Council.
I sense you're a little piqued cos that's when you start the UKIP stylee parish council guff. Scratch a man who voted for Farage..
It's not my fault you Scots were too frit to become a real independent country in 2014. If you were really an independent country and not a part of the UK then you'd have no reason to want an Independence referendum. It's already been achieved and you can just cosplay at being independent.
Ok, I'll upgrade you to 12 double espresso ragin'.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster and the City had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Everyone has the vote in Russia today, but I'd argue that Britain was more democratic in the late 18th century than Russia is today.
It's a mistake to think of democracy as solely about multi-party elections and a wide franchise. There are so many more important aspects.
There are countries like Botswana where the ruling party has remained in power for decades, yet there are opposition parties, and the country has the rule of law and regularly conducts free and fair elections that are internationally seen to be so. It’s just that no credible opposition party that the electorate has any confidence in has ever arisen there. Is Botswana a democracy? Yes. I don’t think there’s any doubt it is.
I always liked the oxymoronic idea of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party, which held unbroken power for 71 years (1929-2000)
Hence the “institutional”! Although IIRC the PRI did use undemocratic means including outright vote-rigging to maintain its grip on power for much of that period.
It is a really interesting moment just afttr the Tory Party Conference.......
Up and down the country people will be comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency.
It's the column each person puts themselves into that will determine the result of next election.
It's the zeitgeist. Unknown at the moment but I've never felt more alienated to any party than I do towards to-days Tories.
LOL. Roger alienated from the Tories. Shock of the century. And, no, I won't be putting myself in some arbitrary Patel vs Rashford column to decide how I'll vote.
LOL! Not 'arbitrary' -mythical!
Yes, who is it going to be - Marcus Rashford, who appears to think the state should take responsibility for everything and that money for any purpose can be conjured up to do so, or the Conservative Party who appear to think that the state should take responsibility for everything and that money can be conjured up to do so? Doesn't seem a massive dichotomy to me. Meanwhile, those of us who think the state ought to be doing and spending rather less have nowhere to go.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
“Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
From the outside Canada feels like at least a tie? But yes, we are doing much better than most of the world on racism, should be proud of that but also acknowledge there is more to do.
How Insulate Britain’s M25 protest worsened the fuel crisis and led to fears of a new winter of discontent EXCLUSIVE The M25 blockage diverted fuel tankers, worsening the petrol shortages in the London and the south east
SNP trio top bill as Glasgow MSPs claim quarter of a million in expenses
Glasgow MSPs racked up an expenses bill of almost a quarter of a million pounds last year.....
The highest claim was from SNP MSP for Kelvin Sandra White, who ....claimed a total of £28,394. The bill included £1800 for Edinburgh hotels at up to £140 per night.....
The lowest claim of the city’s MSPs was from Adam Tomkins, Conservative MSP whose bill totalled £6,080.....
Second lowest was his Tory colleague Annie Wells, who billed for £8,498.
Almost like the SNP are acting as pigs with their noses in the trough.
Hmm, doesn't say how many trips. I'd like to know that. And CArla's quotation carefully omits the point that expenses includes office costs.
But there is also a significant difference. Ms White was a constituency MSP who IIRC is therefore inhetently allowed a substantially greater allowance to run a constituency parliamentary office. Ms Wells and Mr Tomkins were/are regional list MSPs.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
After the 1867 Reform Act many politicians regarded the UK as essentially having become a democracy. It wasn’t, of course, but that was a common attitude.
I agree that a country can’t really be called a democracy until every adult has the franchise. I remember arguing in a undergraduate seminar on whether the early Commonwealth (before the Protectorate) was a democracy that it couldn’t have been as women were disenfranchised. IIRC my lecturer disagreed, arguing that as children aren’t enfranchised modern Britain cannot be a true democracy. My counter-argument was that such a disqualification is literally temporary, in that children will grow to be adults and receive the franchise, but a disqualification based on sex (or race for that matter in countries that had it) can never be overcome.
Just think how the availability of gender reassignment would have complicated the arguments about votes for women.
Yep. You'd have any Tom, Dick or Harry putting on a dress when they couldn't be arsed voting. Or summat.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Were UK expats allowed to vote in the EURef?
Weren't an awful lot of South Africans who had never set foot on Blighty's shores allowed to vote in UK GE 1992?
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Non citizens can vote in elections in my country, just not in elections for your country.
Non citizens can vote for my Local Council too just as they can vote for Sturgeon or anyone else in Holyrood Parish Council.
I sense you're a little piqued cos that's when you start the UKIP stylee parish council guff. Scratch a man who voted for Farage..
It's not my fault you Scots were too frit to become a real independent country in 2014. If you were really an independent country and not a part of the UK then you'd have no reason to want an Independence referendum. It's already been achieved and you can just cosplay at being independent.
I've upped my bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year. Got a significant sum on now
The new BoE chief economist is starting to make hawkish noises.
Looks like we (you, I am leaving) might be heading for a perfect storm of inflation + interest rates + trade friction + benefit cuts + tax rises + supply shocks (labour, energy, distribution).
It is a really interesting moment just afttr the Tory Party Conference.......
Up and down the country people will be comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency.
It's the column each person puts themselves into that will determine the result of next election.
It's the zeitgeist. Unknown at the moment but I've never felt more alienated to any party than I do towards to-days Tories.
Every day Roger you are a just bit more alienated from the Tory party,... just so you can keep writing about how alienated you are. You are a one trick.pony. Noone gives a fuck how alienated you actually are, or that your alienation is greater day by day. You were never going to vote for Boris anyway...
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
“Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir. I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
From the outside Canada feels like at least a tie? But yes, we are doing much better than most of the world on racism, should be proud of that but also acknowledge there is more to do.
Not if you are indigenous. The levels of institutional and casual racism against what are actually the original inhabitants is quite shocking. Even to someone who grew up in working class 70's Lancashire.
I've upped my bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year. Got a significant sum on now
The new BoE chief economist is starting to make hawkish noises.
Looks like we (you, I am leaving) might be heading for a perfect storm of inflation + interest rates + trade friction + benefit cuts + tax rises + supply shocks (labour, energy, distribution).
I doubt many other places, especially the US, are in a much better position.
This is 20 years of short term decisions coming home to roost.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
Which is about 7% more than most of the world at the time.
And we evolved that 7% to 100% via a continuous iteration of democracy not via revolution and rebeginnings.
It's not 100% even now, FYI.
Yes it is. To the nearest percentage it absolutely is 100% now.
Prisoners are less than 0.1% of population, which rounds down to 0%
It's not just prisoners.
The mentally incapable and a few others . . . won't come to 0.5% of adult citizens.
Ah ha, a shift from population to citizens. That changes it.
Non-citizens can vote in their own country, just as our citizens abroad can vote here.
Unless their country isn't a democracy, which just goes to further prove the point.
Were UK expats allowed to vote in the EURef?
Yes, because it was conducted under the same qualifications as a Parliamentary election. (So it included all Irish and Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK.)
Weren't an awful lot of South Africans who had never set foot on Blighty's shores allowed to vote in UK GE 1992?
I would doubt that. Many may well have been British citizens by descent, but you have to be resident in the UK to register as an elector, and you can’t be an overseas voter without first having been on the electoral register in the UK. Plus currently you lose eligibility after (I think) fifteen years residing outside the UK, although that’s about to be abolished.
I've upped my bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year. Got a significant sum on now
The new BoE chief economist is starting to make hawkish noises.
Looks like we (you, I am leaving) might be heading for a perfect storm of inflation + interest rates + trade friction + benefit cuts + tax rises + supply shocks (labour, energy, distribution).
I doubt many other places, especially the US, are in a much better position.
This is 20 years of short term decisions coming home to roost.
Maybe they have run out of road to kick the can down.
It is a really interesting moment just afttr the Tory Party Conference.......
Up and down the country people will be comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency.
It's the column each person puts themselves into that will determine the result of next election.
It's the zeitgeist. Unknown at the moment but I've never felt more alienated to any party than I do towards to-days Tories.
Every day Roger you are a just bit more alienated from the Tory party,... just so you can keep writing about how alienated you are. You are a one trick.pony. Noone gives a fuck how alienated you actually are, or that your alienation is greater day by day. You were never going to vote for Boris anyway...
Who is Noone? Peter Noone of 1960s beat-combo Herman's Hermits?
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
“Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir. I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
Yes. It played some part in the dreadful TV show Gentleman Jack. She was disenfranchised as the eldest daughter (no sons). So became a Tory. Didn't help with the script. Or the acting, mind you.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
From the outside Canada feels like at least a tie? But yes, we are doing much better than most of the world on racism, should be proud of that but also acknowledge there is more to do.
We do have more to do but we really are not a nation of Tommy Robinson wannabes and have progressed so far certainly since I have been alive.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
I wonder if I is because, in terms of history, it was unoccupied until very recently.
So there are no long term indigenous people there to have been displaced
Their cuisine is a mix of a variety of different cultures and works well.
We went fhere a few years ago. Lovely place lovely people.
It is a really interesting moment just afttr the Tory Party Conference.......
Up and down the country people will be comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency.
It's the column each person puts themselves into that will determine the result of next election.
It's the zeitgeist. Unknown at the moment but I've never felt more alienated to any party than I do towards to-days Tories.
Every day Roger you are a just bit more alienated from the Tory party,... just so you can keep writing about how alienated you are. You are a one trick.pony. Noone gives a fuck how alienated you actually are, or that your alienation is greater day by day. You were never going to vote for Boris anyway...
Who is Noone? Peter Noone of 1960s beat-combo Herman's Hermits.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
From the outside Canada feels like at least a tie? But yes, we are doing much better than most of the world on racism, should be proud of that but also acknowledge there is more to do.
I don't think Mauritius has quite the history with regard to the treatment of the indigenous people that Canada has. Largely, if not solely, due to the fact that there were no indigenous people.
It is a really interesting moment just afttr the Tory Party Conference.......
Up and down the country people will be comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency.
It's the column each person puts themselves into that will determine the result of next election.
It's the zeitgeist. Unknown at the moment but I've never felt more alienated to any party than I do towards to-days Tories.
Every day Roger you are a just bit more alienated from the Tory party,... just so you can keep writing about how alienated you are. You are a one trick.pony. Noone gives a fuck how alienated you actually are, or that your alienation is greater day by day. You were never going to vote for Boris anyway...
Who is Noone? Peter Noone of 1960s beat-combo Herman's Hermits.
I've upped my bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year. Got a significant sum on now
The new BoE chief economist is starting to make hawkish noises.
Looks like we (you, I am leaving) might be heading for a perfect storm of inflation + interest rates + trade friction + benefit cuts + tax rises + supply shocks (labour, energy, distribution).
I doubt many other places, especially the US, are in a much better position.
This is 20 years of short term decisions coming home to roost.
Maybe they have run out of road to kick the can down.
If the road runs out, politicians will find a way to imagine the road down which to kick the can.
Comments
I was very impressed at his innovation
EC = Your Economic position is 41° Right, your National position is 2° International, and your Social position is 46° Liberal. You are economically strongly right-wing, nationally moderate, and strongly socially liberal
PC = -3.0 economic, -4.97 libertarian
So probably fairly close agreement on the libertarian streak, very different results on the economic.
I do not say that disenfranchising non-citizens has the same effect and you are wrong to infer it.
This takes the biscuit
https://sifted.eu/articles/cala-robot/
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72
Would be better if there were more nuanced takes such as "state intervention in markets can often cause distortions and reduce consumer choice" or "free markets often deliver a good outcome for humanity".
It’s crap, outdated and US-centric.
Up and down the country people will be comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency.
It's the column each person puts themselves into that will determine the result of next election.
It's the zeitgeist. Unknown at the moment but I've never felt more alienated to any party than I do towards to-days Tories.
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59
Power to the people!
I guess we're (almost) all left wingers from a United States perspective. To be honest, I'm as surprised to be mildly right wing on EC as I was to be quite strongly left wing on PC.
Edit: I'm also not near any of the balls on the EC chart - might explain why I'm feeling a bit politically homeless.
SNP trio top bill as Glasgow MSPs claim quarter of a million in expenses
Glasgow MSPs racked up an expenses bill of almost a quarter of a million pounds last year.....
The highest claim was from SNP MSP for Kelvin Sandra White, who ....claimed a total of £28,394. The bill included £1800 for Edinburgh hotels at up to £140 per night.....
The lowest claim of the city’s MSPs was from Adam Tomkins, Conservative MSP whose bill totalled £6,080.....
Second lowest was his Tory colleague Annie Wells, who billed for £8,498.
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19633228.snp-trio-top-bill-glasgow-msps-claim-quarter-million-expenses/
Will achieve more than 100 XR/IB activists gluing themselves to trains and roads.
(Liked @HYUFD 's suggested test by the way)
Economic 19° Left mildly left-wing
National 75° International very strongly globalist
Social 79° Liberal very strongly socially liberal
As for the rest, who knows? I don't subscribe to Marxist concepts about the inevitability of future history, but things might turn out that way. It depends on what choices we make.
https://twitter.com/LeaskyHT/status/1446471017543634948?s=20
I think there would be a lot of people, like me, who can see both sides the argument and would find such questions interesting – but difficult – to answer.
There are few people in the country or world who share the same instincts, which is why parties with truly liberal/libertarian policies rarely do well. For all their cultural "modernity" both Blair's New Labour and Cameron and Osborne's Tories had a strong underpinning of centralising authoritarianism to them.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1446464352396222465?s=20
I agree that a country can’t really be called a democracy until every adult has the franchise. I remember arguing in a undergraduate seminar on whether the early Commonwealth (before the Protectorate) was a democracy that it couldn’t have been as women were disenfranchised. IIRC my lecturer disagreed, arguing that as children aren’t enfranchised modern Britain cannot be a true democracy. My counter-argument was that such a disqualification is literally temporary, in that children will grow to be adults and receive the franchise, but a disqualification based on sex (or race for that matter in countries that had it) can never be overcome.
Privetstvuyu vas, tovarishchi!
If you really can’t decide then there ought to be a special category that you can go into, along with our PM.
Note that Cyprus and Malta are members of both the Commonwealth and the EU.
Edit: that should have been memotype vs genotype
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Russia could become an ideal tourist destination for covid sceptics, who are not afraid of going to a country where the epidemic is still raging, just one third of the population is vaccinated and very few people wear masks.
https://twitter.com/ArtyomLukin/status/1446474606919962625?s=20
13 Mildly Right
67 Strong globalist
79 Very strong social liberal
Meanwhile, those of us who think the state ought to be doing and spending rather less have nowhere to go.
How Insulate Britain’s M25 protest worsened the fuel crisis and led to fears of a new winter of discontent
EXCLUSIVE The M25 blockage diverted fuel tankers, worsening the petrol shortages in the London and the south east
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/petrol-shortages-insulate-britain-m25-protest-fuel-crisis-winter-of-discontent-1239510
But there is also a significant difference. Ms White was a constituency MSP who IIRC is therefore inhetently allowed a substantially greater allowance to run a constituency parliamentary office. Ms Wells and Mr Tomkins were/are regional list MSPs.
Weren't an awful lot of South Africans who had never set foot on Blighty's shores allowed to vote in UK GE 1992?
Cranleigh East (Waverley) by-election result:
LDEM: 56.8% (+12.0)
CON: 43.2% (+4.1)
Looks like we (you, I am leaving) might be heading for a perfect storm of inflation + interest rates + trade friction + benefit cuts + tax rises + supply shocks (labour, energy, distribution).
What odds out of interest ?
I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
This is 20 years of short term decisions coming home to roost.
Didn't help with the script. Or the acting, mind you.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
So there are no long term indigenous people there to have been displaced
Their cuisine is a mix of a variety of different cultures and works well.
We went fhere a few years ago. Lovely place lovely people.
Largely, if not solely, due to the fact that there were no indigenous people.