Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Further signs that the GOP will steal the 2024 election – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,642

    I may be biased, but I think in that scenario the UK would be one of the last places to fall.

    Ancient history of democracy (older even than America), iteratively developed rather than enmeshed in a "written constitution" with "checks and balances" (that I view as a flaw, not a feature), not tied down with other nations in any institution like the EU with antidemocratic tendencies, plus an island nation happy to plough a path alone.
    While I’ll concede that we have a reasonably long history of parliamentary government but democracy in this country is barely 100 years old, having only begun with the final abolition of the property qualification in 1918. The unchallenged canard that we have an “ancient history of democracy” shows the speaker doesn’t know the meaning of either “ancient”, “history” or “democracy”. We are no long standing beacon of liberty. We need democracy to bed down here for a while before we can be a last bastion of it.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,924
    Leon said:

    ANECDATA

    Driving around central and north London today, about 3/4 of petrol stations had limited or no petrol

    It is still happening. Is this just now a central-ish London thing?

    Pretty much, yes.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,347
    MaxPB said:

    I also don't understand this idea that Trump will win in 2024. He still has all of the same negatives and Americans will, once again, reject him. Democracy will win out just as it did in 2020.

    I think so too but I'm not as confident as I was last time.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,100
    edited October 2021

    End free speech in order to save it? I'm no great fan of social media, but I think you overstate its influence, and its problems stem more from shouty individuals than bots. Ban social media and they will find other ways to shout.

    I can see Germany being a bastion of free speech, by the way - for obvious reasons they have an enduring hatred of rabble-rousing, and as we've just seen they vote Boring with enthusiasm. But Switzerland certainly - the tolerant conservative parent model elevated to national culture.
    Switzerland also has the benefit of being an island nation I believe.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    MaxPB said:

    I think he had his eye on receiving a legion d'honneur. Grieve was absolutely a fifth columnist, he was very clearly taking instructions from Brussels and Paris on how to frustrate the Brexit process and probably advising them on how best to ensure the UK was unable to leave the EU.
    What is all this fifth columnist nonsense . You’re beginning to sound unhinged.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,471
    tlg86 said:

    It makes sense that London suffering was more prolonged. If you run a distribution hub, you might as well keep the more local stations stocked as it's quicker to do those ones. But I'd have thought London should be okay now.
    I think this just reflects the fact there is a longer term shortfall in deliveries, and London is for one reason or another the most impacted. It was never just about panic buying. There was a panic which exacerbated an actual physical shortage.
  • End free speech in order to save it? I'm no great fan of social media, but I think you overstate its influence, and its problems stem more from shouty individuals than bots. Ban social media and they will find other ways to shout.

    I can see Germany being a bastion of free speech, by the way - for obvious reasons they have an enduring hatred of rabble-rousing, and as we've just seen they vote Boring with enthusiasm. But Switzerland certainly - the tolerant conservative parent model elevated to national culture.
    I have another Modest Proposal: ban social media from carrying (paid) advertising and instead require them to charge a subscription if they want o cover their costs. This would make the users the customers rather than the product, and have the side effect of making the running of multiple bot accounts a much more costly undertaking.
  • Can anyone explain why London should be worse affected than anywhere else by the petrol shortage?

    3 reasons. Not sure their order of priority.

    I believe the fuel infrastructure there is more rickety: less redundancy due to insane property prices and the relative importance of public transport means there's far fewer stations than you'd expect relative to population there.

    Plus the media are there to exaggerate any issues.

    Plus Remainers are there to exaggerate any issues.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,022
    FF43 said:

    I can foresee a situation where Johnson could steal an election. He has already proposed significantly weakened governance - making the Electoral Commission answerable to ministers instead of being independent, limiting the role of judges to investigate executive misdemeanors, photo ID required to vote where there is essentially no fraud risk.

    The aim isn't North Korean levels of vote, but boosting say a 35% vote share to 40% could be enough to get a majority.
    If Labour/the left/anyone who dislikes Johnson had any sense they would portray him as weak. Not allowing cabinet colleagues to make speeches in front of the activists, trying to gerrymander the voting system, weakening accountability of government.

    They won't because the strong/weak theme is now anathema to them.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,286
    TimS said:

    I think this just reflects the fact there is a longer term shortfall in deliveries, and London is for one reason or another the most impacted. It was never just about panic buying. There was a panic which exacerbated an actual physical shortage.
    The stats prior to September don’t show this though, supply was flat.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,504
    DougSeal said:

    While I’ll concede that we have a reasonably long history of parliamentary government but democracy in this country is barely 100 years old, having only begun with the final abolition of the property qualification in 1918. The unchallenged canard that we have an “ancient history of democracy” shows the speaker doesn’t know the meaning of either “ancient”, “history” or “democracy”. We are no long standing beacon of liberty. We need democracy to bed down here for a while before we can be a last bastion of it.
    There a quite a few people here who would hold that the problem is universal suffrage democracy.

    Hence my espousal of the Putney Party - Ireton was right in the debates....

    no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom
  • RobD said:

    Is Indonesia an island nation? Maybe an islands nation.

    According to this, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_island_countries#Sovereign_states_and_states_with_limited_recognition
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,100
    On the topic of the end of civilisation as we know it...

    We;ve just watched the (rather leaden, if truth be told) BBC documentary on the recording of the Bridge over Troubled Water album.

    The point being, it reminded me of the genuine 'end of days' feeling that existed in the late 60s in America.

    Plus ça change, eh.
  • DougSeal said:

    While I’ll concede that we have a reasonably long history of parliamentary government but democracy in this country is barely 100 years old, having only begun with the final abolition of the property qualification in 1918. The unchallenged canard that we have an “ancient history of democracy” shows the speaker doesn’t know the meaning of either “ancient”, “history” or “democracy”. We are no long standing beacon of liberty. We need democracy to bed down here for a while before we can be a last bastion of it.
    Not at all. It was a property-based democracy but it was still a democracy. The franchise may have evolved over time until it reached universal democracy, but for its day democracy was still how divisions between eg Whigs and Tories were settled even in the 19th century and earlier.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,454
    Leon said:

    ANECDATA

    Driving around central and north London today, about 3/4 of petrol stations had limited or no petrol

    It is still happening. Is this just now a central-ish London thing?

    Driving back from Leicester tonight all three petrol stations that I passed seemed to be working normally.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,286
    But it has a land border :o
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,504

    3 reasons. Not sure their order of priority.

    I believe the fuel infrastructure there is more rickety: less redundancy due to insane property prices and the relative importance of public transport means there's far fewer stations than you'd expect relative to population there.

    Plus the media are there to exaggerate any issues.

    Plus Remainers are there to exaggerate any issues.
    The normally low usage of petrol per car is probably the main issue.

    Many Londoners have a car, and drive it about twice a month. When they fill their tanks at the same time, you have the combination of a normally low rate of delivery and a sudden, huge jump in demand.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,347

    Wrong again, and out of order, and I have glasses. I've never supported the referendum result being overturned. Find me one post where I've said that (let alone 'many times'). I was opposed to the second referendum campaign, always have been. I didn't want Brexit, still don't, but always accepted the result. Are you confusing me with somebody else?

    These personal attacks from some posters are getting really tiresome.
    Remainers all look the same to Max.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970

    End free speech in order to save it? I'm no great fan of social media, but I think you overstate its influence, and its problems stem more from shouty individuals than bots. Ban social media and they will find other ways to shout.

    I can see Germany being a bastion of free speech, by the way - for obvious reasons they have an enduring hatred of rabble-rousing, and as we've just seen they vote Boring with enthusiasm. But Switzerland certainly - the tolerant conservative parent model elevated to national culture.
    With all respect (and I have come to grudgingly respect your calm if lefty insights!) I think you are of a generation that does not understand the incredible power of social media

    Essentially, it is the invention of printing, times a thousand. It is Guternberg on mega-steroids

    Social media allows anyone to speak to anyone anywhere in the world, instantly, and in a global language - English - and using universal symbols: memes, GIFs, funny videos. Add in to that the potential for fake News, Deep Fakes, and so on, and you have a recipe for utter mayhem

    China has banned unregulated social media for a reason. They know it is a threat to civil stability. They are right. They may be evil autocrats, but they are right

    The invention of social media in the early 21st century is like someone inventing the submachine gun or the long range bomber in warlike medieval Europe. The power is bewildering, it is so huge we have no real conception of what it might do, or what it can achieve, but we do know it will cause chaos, trouble and death

    It has to be reined in. The first stop must be breaking up the obvious monopolies like Facebook
  • The normally low usage of petrol per car is probably the main issue.

    Many Londoners have a car, and drive it about twice a month. When they fill their tanks at the same time, you have the combination of a normally low rate of delivery and a sudden, huge jump in demand.
    Indeed.

    It probably takes far longer to get to the point of "everyone's tank is full now, they can't keep panicking now" point as a result.

    If there are still people with "Chelsea Tractors" they almost never drive able to fill their tanks then they'll still be prolonging the panic - while the rest of the nation filled theirs and moved on already.
  • @NickPalmer I missed the time to edit my earlier comment. I wanted to add this:
    I’m not sure the Americans would think that Germany currently has free speech; there are a lot of things which (for very good reason) are banned because the government thinks they are bad.
    Personally I think free speech can be over-rated as being a good thing.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,642

    Not at all. It was a property-based democracy but it was still a democracy. The franchise may have evolved over time until it reached universal democracy, but for its day democracy was still how divisions between eg Whigs and Tories were settled even in the 19th century and earlier.
    No. “Property based democracy” is an oxymoron. Democracy means rule by the “demos” or people. If only landowners have the vote you have an oligarchy. If you want to promote an oligarchy, fine, but don’t call it democracy. Anyway, Parliamentary supremacy was only established in the mid 17th century. Under no circumstances can you describe the limited representative government established then as being “ancient”.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,454
    RobD said:

    But it has a land border :o
    More than 1. East Timor, Malaysia and PNG

    Though Indonesia is so dominated by the Javanese that it might as well be thought of as an Island nation plus empire.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    edited October 2021
    Presumably a fair and precise definition of an island nation is a nation self-contained on an island (or islands) without any land borders.

    So on that basis, England, Scotland and Wales are not island nations and nor, strictly speaking, is the UK or ROI.

    Admittedly, people think of them as such. I guess Haiti is also considered an island nation. But it isn’t really one either.
  • DougSeal said:

    No. “Property based democracy” is an oxymoron. Democracy means rule by the “demos” or people. If only landowners have the vote you have an oligarchy. If you want to promote an oligarchy, fine, but don’t call it democracy. Anyway, Parliamentary supremacy was only established in the mid 17th century. Under no circumstances can you describe the limited representative government established then as being “ancient”.
    Doesn’t that mean that the original use of the word was wrong then?
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,743

    There a quite a few people here who would hold that the problem is universal suffrage democracy.

    Hence my espousal of the Putney Party - Ireton was right in the debates....

    no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom
    I'll accept it if the man can only own one house.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,504
    DougSeal said:

    No. “Property based democracy” is an oxymoron. Democracy means rule by the “demos” or people. If only landowners have the vote you have an oligarchy. If you want to promote an oligarchy, fine, but don’t call it democracy. Anyway, Parliamentary supremacy was only established in the mid 17th century. Under no circumstances can you describe the limited representative government established then as being “ancient”.
    The problem with that definition is it reduces the number of democracies in history to nearly nothing. Including a number of societies which everyone (at the time) described as democracies.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,562
    MaxPB said:

    I think he had his eye on receiving a legion d'honneur. Grieve was absolutely a fifth columnist, he was very clearly taking instructions from Brussels and Paris on how to frustrate the Brexit process and probably advising them on how best to ensure the UK was unable to leave the EU.
    Your evidence being?
  • Leon said:

    With all respect (and I have come to grudgingly respect your calm if lefty insights!) I think you are of a generation that does not understand the incredible power of social media

    Essentially, it is the invention of printing, times a thousand. It is Guternberg on mega-steroids

    Social media allows anyone to speak to anyone anywhere in the world, instantly, and in a global language - English - and using universal symbols: memes, GIFs, funny videos. Add in to that the potential for fake News, Deep Fakes, and so on, and you have a recipe for utter mayhem

    China has banned unregulated social media for a reason. They know it is a threat to civil stability. They are right. They may be evil autocrats, but they are right

    The invention of social media in the early 21st century is like someone inventing the submachine gun or the long range bomber in warlike medieval Europe. The power is bewildering, it is so huge we have no real conception of what it might do, or what it can achieve, but we do know it will cause chaos, trouble and death

    It has to be reined in. The first stop must be breaking up the obvious monopolies like Facebook
    I couldn't disagree more on this one.

    Yes its a threat to "civil stability" but "stability" is overrated. Instability is our strength - and stability is China's downfall.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    Indeed.

    It probably takes far longer to get to the point of "everyone's tank is full now, they can't keep panicking now" point as a result.

    If there are still people with "Chelsea Tractors" they almost never drive able to fill their tanks then they'll still be prolonging the panic - while the rest of the nation filled theirs and moved on already.
    Yup. That describes me. I had to make two stops yesterday to fill the vast tank in my Chelsea Tractor. It’s been sat on the street doing nothing since the crisis began, as it often does in any normal week.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,504

    I'll accept it if the man can only own one house.
    Excellent

    image
  • Presumably a fair and precise definition of an island nation is a nation self-contained on an island (or islands) without any land borders.

    So on that basis, England, Scotland and Wales are not island nations and nor, strictly speaking, is the UK or ROI.

    Admittedly, people think of them as such. I guess Haiti is also considered an island nation. But it isn’t really one either.

    The Wikipedia version (I don’t know their source but wh don’t we agree that it is sensible and leave it at that?):
    Many island countries are spread over an archipelago, as is the case with the Federated States of Micronesia and Indonesia (both of which consist of thousands of islands). Others consist of a single island, such as Barbados or Nauru, or part of an island, such as the Dominican Republic or Brunei.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970

    I couldn't disagree more on this one.

    Yes its a threat to "civil stability" but "stability" is overrated. Instability is our strength - and stability is China's downfall.
    When GPT3 or GPT4 Deepfake political videos come along, you will see that what I am saying is true

  • DougSeal said:

    No. “Property based democracy” is an oxymoron. Democracy means rule by the “demos” or people. If only landowners have the vote you have an oligarchy. If you want to promote an oligarchy, fine, but don’t call it democracy. Anyway, Parliamentary supremacy was only established in the mid 17th century. Under no circumstances can you describe the limited representative government established then as being “ancient”.
    Its rule by the people but who the people are isn't set in stone. The people were in the past considered to be the property owners. Currently they're adults. Maybe in the future it'd be all teenagers as well as adults.

    The UK's democracy has evolved over centuries, there's no individual starting point to it.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,022
    Cyclefree said:

    Your evidence being?
    I've never really forgiven Grieve for his expensive attempts to keep Prince Charles' witterings from pubic disclosure.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    The Wikipedia version (I don’t know their source but wh don’t we agree that it is sensible and leave it at that?):
    Many island countries are spread over an archipelago, as is the case with the Federated States of Micronesia and Indonesia (both of which consist of thousands of islands). Others consist of a single island, such as Barbados or Nauru, or part of an island, such as the Dominican Republic or Brunei.
    Because this is pedanticbetting.com and therefore we don’t just meekly accept sensible, MOR, Wikipedia definitions.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,224
    Just seen Bond. First half good. Second half shit. Really shit. Poison plant island? Deary me.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Is Cyprus an island nation?
  • Is Cyprus an island nation?

    Or is it two?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,642

    Doesn’t that mean that the original use of the word was wrong then?
    There are a number of problems with Me Thompson’s assertion before you even get to the extent of the franchise in Ancient Athens. The principle that the King could not rule without Parliament was not established until 1660. The later principle that Parliament was sovereign not established until 1689. So even if you describe the current arrangement as democratic we are talking less than 3 and a half centuries since even that was established - that’s not ancient.

    Ancient Athens excluded slaves and women from voting. We excluded slaves (such as there were in England but definitely in the colonies), women AND poor people. And we have, unlike most other western countries, never been able to vote for the upper house of our legislature nor the head of state.

    The claims of this country to democracy are a little shaky, at least historically.

  • Leon said:

    When GPT3 or GPT4 Deepfake political videos come along, you will see that what I am saying is true

    Alternative its only through the shining light of free speech that we'll be able to handle the deepfaked political videos.

    Allow them to be "controlled" by an individual or state without being countered then that's when its going to get much worse.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,471
    Talking of Wikipedia it always impresses me how quickly informative and generally balanced coverage of contemporary events appears on there. For example, here’s the Wikipedia take on the petrol shortage:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_Kingdom_fuel_panic_buying
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,642

    Its rule by the people but who the people are isn't set in stone. The people were in the past considered to be the property owners. Currently they're adults. Maybe in the future it'd be all teenagers as well as adults.

    The UK's democracy has evolved over centuries, there's no individual starting point to it.
    Other countries have been more democratic for longer and even the more recent democracies have it more deeply entrenched
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,562
    Nigelb said:

    I suspect that the high rates of suicide among transgender individuals (and also the very high rates of homelessness), have rather more to do with familial rejection than psychiatric disorders.
    This claim for high suicide rates among transgender individuals needs to be fact checked. A FoI information request for this information was made in 2018. You can see the response from the ONS here - https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/suicideratesandtransgenderpersons.

    The other point worth making is that definitions matter. Is the claim being made about those who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria or those who claim to be transgender without such a diagnosis? The other point worth noting is that among children referred to the Tavistock Centre, for instance, a significant portion have other mental conditions, for instance, autism. So the extent to which such suicides - and any suicide is, whatever its cause, a tragedy - are because of one aspect rather than another or the combination of them is difficult to say.


  • DougSeal said:

    There are a number of problems with Me Thompson’s assertion before you even get to the extent of the franchise in Ancient Athens. The principle that the King could not rule without Parliament was not established until 1660. The later principle that Parliament was sovereign not established until 1689. So even if you describe the current arrangement as democratic we are talking less than 3 and a half centuries since even that was established - that’s not ancient.

    Ancient Athens excluded slaves and women from voting. We excluded slaves (such as there were in England but definitely in the colonies), women AND poor people. And we have, unlike most other western countries, never been able to vote for the upper house of our legislature nor the head of state.

    The claims of this country to democracy are a little shaky, at least historically.

    They also excluded anyone who had not done their military training. That would skew the results a bit if we tried that in the UK…
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,454
    Donald Tusk got a good turnout this evening in Warsaw:

    https://twitter.com/BeuthMonika/status/1447248608395399181?t=SrA3EpkKXstQcAIgP_CXNA&s=19

    And I see the latest poll is 89% to stay in the EU, vs 6% for Poland to leave.

    The Polish government is describing these as protests against the Constitution, which is true to a point, but just shows that Constitutions should require consensus support rather than just be changed by a temporary government.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    edited October 2021

    I've never really forgiven Grieve for his expensive attempts to keep Prince Charles' witterings from pubic disclosure.
    I've always wondered how the Royal Family divides on Brexit

    Queen and the (late) DoE: Leave, for sure

    Charles: vaguely Remain

    Camilla: hard Leave

    William, truly impossible to call (which is a credit to him)

    Kate: Remain, but close

    Harry: Leave (but close)

    Meghan: (hard) Remain:

    Andrew: mild Remain? But focused on "totty"

    Edward: Remain (vague media career)

    Anne: Leave

    Any other guesses?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    Or is it two?
    Or three?
  • DougSeal said:

    There are a number of problems with Me Thompson’s assertion before you even get to the extent of the franchise in Ancient Athens. The principle that the King could not rule without Parliament was not established until 1660. The later principle that Parliament was sovereign not established until 1689. So even if you describe the current arrangement as democratic we are talking less than 3 and a half centuries since even that was established - that’s not ancient.

    Ancient Athens excluded slaves and women from voting. We excluded slaves (such as there were in England but definitely in the colonies), women AND poor people. And we have, unlike most other western countries, never been able to vote for the upper house of our legislature nor the head of state.

    The claims of this country to democracy are a little shaky, at least historically.

    Not at all. Democracy is voting by the people and we've had that for many hundreds of years. Who the people are has evolved but if you define it as all adult men and women then you're saying that even Athens itself wasn't a democracy.

    You want us to use the word liberty instead, but if you judge liberty by modern standards you have the same problem. The liberty of hundreds of years ago (or even dozens of years ago) is not the same as our liberty today.

    The point and its a strength is that British democracy hasn't got a single start date. There was no single revolution or piece of paper that got us to where we are today. It has evolved over many hundreds of years.

    In the battle of evolution versus 'intelligent design' our democracy falls firmly in the former category, from centuries of evolution. Most other countries democracies have been more in the latter category which then runs into more serious issues when the "intelligently designed" "checks and balances" fail, in a way we haven't had.
  • Or three?
    I had forgotten the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

    😊
  • DougSeal said:

    Other countries have been more democratic for longer and even the more recent democracies have it more deeply entrenched
    Name the countries you're thinking about and why. Seems like garbage to me. How significantly longer or how significantly deeper entrenched?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,562
    Leon said:

    I've always wondered how the Royal Family divides on Brexit

    Queen and the (late) DoE: Leave, for sure

    Charles: vaguely Remain

    Camilla: hard Leave

    William, truly impossible to call (which is a credit to him)

    Kate: Remain, but close

    Harry: Leave (but close)

    Meghan: (hard) Remain:

    Andrew: mild Remain? But focused on "totty"

    Edward: Remain (vague media career)

    Anne: Leave

    Any other guesses?
    Duke of Edinburgh: Remain. My reasons: he was a fluent French and German speaker, his war record and his environmental interests.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    Leon said:

    I've always wondered how the Royal Family divides on Brexit

    Queen and the (late) DoE: Leave, for sure

    Charles: vaguely Remain

    Camilla: hard Leave

    William, truly impossible to call (which is a credit to him)

    Kate: Remain, but close

    Harry: Leave (but close)

    Meghan: (hard) Remain:

    Andrew: mild Remain? But focused on "totty"

    Edward: Remain (vague media career)

    Anne: Leave

    Any other guesses?
    William would have been Remain.

    The Queen Mother had she still been around would have definitely been Leave
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    Cyclefree said:

    Duke of Edinburgh: Remain. My reasons: he was a fluent French and German speaker, his war record and his environmental interests.

    Fair point but he would also have that generation's wariness of all things "European", given what happened to his mother (and him, in the end)

    I hear rumours he was firmly Leave, like the Queen - but they are mere rumours
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,644

    Its rule by the people but who the people are isn't set in stone. The people were in the past considered to be the property owners. Currently they're adults. Maybe in the future it'd be all teenagers as well as adults.

    The UK's democracy has evolved over centuries, there's no individual starting point to it.
    So would you say China is a democracy? To exert effective influence you need to be at least a middle-ranking Communist Party official, but I suppose anyone can join and aspire to that position. Rather like medieval landowners, they engender a mixture of fear (of arbitrary rule) and respect (for making society prosperous).

    I'd call it an autocracy, just with different autocrats from the ones we had. If you call anything involving "rule by some of the people" a democracy then the word loses its meaning. As I think you'll concede, on reflection, as you aren't usually that closed to reasonable argument.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,100
    Cyclefree said:

    Duke of Edinburgh: Remain. My reasons: he was a fluent French and German speaker, his war record and his environmental interests.
    And he was Greek, of course.

    Andrew: Leavers will think he's Remain; Remainers will think he was Leave. No one wants him in their camp.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    edited October 2021
    HYUFD said:

    William would have been Remain.

    The Queen Mother had she still been around would have definitely been Leave
    Harry would have been Leave but would now be anti Brexit as Meghan would dictate his views on the EU and loathing Boris as she does on everything else
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,100

    Or three?
    No State is an Island, Entire of Itself.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,642

    Name the countries you're thinking about and why. Seems like garbage to me. How significantly longer or how significantly deeper entrenched?
    Here you go -

    https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-worlds-oldest-democracies/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    HYUFD said:

    William would have been Remain.

    The Queen Mother had she still been around would have definitely been Leave
    It is a huge gold star for William and Kate that they are so hard to call, politically

    They understand (as does the Queen, and as Charles does not, quite) that doing the job well means a lifetime of political neutrality and muteness. In return you get endless luxury, travel and adoration, but you have to amputate the limb of "independent thought" and you have to behave moderately well, all the time. The odd discrete affair is OK. but there can be no overt womanising, partying or drug taking, especially now.

    That is quite a sacrifice. But that's how constitutional monarchies work, these days

    King Bumibhol of Siam and Queen Elizabeth 2 of the UK are the two paramount examples of doing this brilliantly, and both were/are notably adored by their people


  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    I couldn't disagree more on this one.

    Yes its a threat to "civil stability" but "stability" is overrated. Instability is our strength - and stability is China's downfall.
    Leon is right and the clue is in the name - social MEDIA. States have regulated media for decades for a very clear reason namely that they understood the potential for control of the media to be misused for nefarious purposes. Not sure why we think it is ok to regulate one but not the other.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,454
    DougSeal said:

    Here you go -

    https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-worlds-oldest-democracies/
    Surely NZ should be the oldest democracy? as the first country with female suffrage from 1893.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,907

    Name the countries you're thinking about and why. Seems like garbage to me. How significantly longer or how significantly deeper entrenched?
    Are you really entering a dick swinging contest about who has the longest democracy? Christ…
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,642
    Foxy said:

    Surely NZ should be the oldest democracy? as the first country with female suffrage from 1893.

    It’s in with a shout
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Are you really entering a dick swinging contest about who has the longest democracy? Christ…
    Especially odd from a blow-in from the colonies.
  • DougSeal said:

    Here you go -

    https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-worlds-oldest-democracies/
    What an extraordinarily fallacious and clearly American map.

    So the USA is a democracy dating back to the eighteenth century, but in the eighteenth century approximately 6% of adult males (so about 3% of adults) had the right to vote.

    How was eighteenth century America a democracy, but the UK wasn't a democracy until 1885?
  • Are you really entering a dick swinging contest about who has the longest democracy? Christ…
    Not at all, I simply stated matter of factly that as one of the oldest democracies the UK which has evolved and not been created the UK was well placed to avoid a descent away from democracy.

    DougSeal then objected to the claim the UK is an old democracy.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    A study by Ipsos Mori in 2018 found 30 per cent of those surveyed in China felt the Royal family gives them a more positive view of Britain. Thirty-eight per cent felt "more positive" in India, with the Queen the most popular family member in both countries.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/10/10/senior-royals-attend-cop26-uk-pulls-stops-climate-change-fight/

    So much for the Commonwealth, with the Royal family only having an 8 %age point edge in India vs China.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970

    What an extraordinarily fallacious and clearly American map.

    So the USA is a democracy dating back to the eighteenth century, but in the eighteenth century approximately 6% of adult males (so about 3% of adults) had the right to vote.

    How was eighteenth century America a democracy, but the UK wasn't a democracy until 1885?
    Yes, that is quite outrageous nonsense. When America was founded as a "democracy" they had slavery on their own soil, and a Constitution which explicitly denied suffrage to these US slaves in terms of voting rights. And many of the signatories to that Constitution were slave-owners, on their own estates, in the USA

    Preposterous

    The UK probably has the oldest datable continuous parliament, Iceland is alongside
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,642
    Leon said:

    Yes, that is quite outrageous nonsense. When America was founded as a "democracy" they had slavery on their own soil, and a Constitution which explicitly denied suffrage to these US slaves in terms of voting rights. And many of the signatories to that Constitution were slave-owners, on their own estates, in the USA

    Preposterous

    The UK probably has the oldest datable continuous parliament, Iceland is alongside
    A Parliament does not a democracy make.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,642
    edited October 2021

    What an extraordinarily fallacious and clearly American map.

    So the USA is a democracy dating back to the eighteenth century, but in the eighteenth century approximately 6% of adult males (so about 3% of adults) had the right to vote.

    How was eighteenth century America a democracy, but the UK wasn't a democracy until 1885?
    This map you so blithely dismiss nevertheless clearly defines what it means by democracy. What’s wrong with its definition and how it is applied? How do you define it? How on Earth could the United Kingdom, whose monarch appointed a government against the wishes of Parliament (and thus any voters whatsoever) as recently as 1834, count as a democracy before the USA, whose chief executives have always been elected, and certainly since it’s constitution was adopted in 1789?

    Sure, we’ve been electing Parliaments since at least the 15th century, but so have a lot of countries.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    DougSeal said:

    A Parliament does not a democracy make.
    What does? Suffrage? Partial suffrage? White suffrage? Men only suffrage? Universal suffrage? It is all absurdly moot. But human slavery on your soil and embodied, literally, in your written Constitution renders the USA unacceptable until the end of the Civil War, I fear, and maybe beyond, so long later than most of the other examples

    The continuous roots of British democracy centred around Westminster go deeper than almost any other polity

    That's all we can say

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    edited October 2021
    IshmaelZ said:

    A study by Ipsos Mori in 2018 found 30 per cent of those surveyed in China felt the Royal family gives them a more positive view of Britain. Thirty-eight per cent felt "more positive" in India, with the Queen the most popular family member in both countries.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/10/10/senior-royals-attend-cop26-uk-pulls-stops-climate-change-fight/

    So much for the Commonwealth, with the Royal family only having an 8 %age point edge in India vs China.

    Actually shows the astonishing global reach of our Royal family and especially the Queen that a 3rd of Chinese have a more positive view of the UK because of her. The Royal brand spreads even beyond the Commonwealth
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    DougSeal said:

    This map you so blithely dismiss nevertheless clearly defines what it means by democracy. What’s wrong with its definition and how it is applied? How do you define it? How on Earth could the United Kingdom, whose monarch appointed a government against the wishes of Parliament (and thus any voters whatsoever) as recently as 1834, count as a democracy before the USA, whose chief executives have always been elected, and certainly since it’s constitution was adopted in 1789?

    Sure, we’ve been electing Parliaments since at least the 15th century, but so have a lot of countries.
    To be fair it is based on when most adult males had the vote.

    Certainly by 1840 over 80% of white males in the USA had the vote and used it in that year's presidential election

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    HYUFD said:

    To be fair it is based on when most adult males had the vote.

    Certainly by 1840 over 80% of white males in the USA had the vote and used it in that year's presidential election

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States
    Apart from, you know, about 5 billion black people. Not just men
  • DougSeal said:

    This map you so blithely dismiss nevertheless clearly defines what it means by democracy. What’s wrong with its definition and how it is applied? How do you define it? How on Earth could the United Kingdom, whose monarch appointed a government against the wishes of Parliament (and thus any voters whatsoever) as recently as 1834, count as a democracy before the USA, whose chief executives have always been elected, and certainly since it’s constitution was adopted in 1789?

    Sure, we’ve been electing Parliaments since at least the 15th century, but so have a lot of countries.
    They define it by and I quote "Voting: A majority of adult men has the right to vote."

    In the 18th century only property owning males had the vote in America, just like in the UK. The estimated percentage of population who had the right to vote in the US in 1789 is 6% of adult males.

    How does 6% of adult males equate to a majority of adult men?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    DougSeal said:

    It’s in with a shout
    This forgets the few remaining hunger gatherer societies, such as the Andaman Islanders, who have always operated by tribal consensus.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,642

    They define it by and I quote "Voting: A majority of adult men has the right to vote."

    In the 18th century only property owning males had the vote in America, just like in the UK. The estimated percentage of population who had the right to vote in the US in 1789 is 6% of adult males.

    How does 6% of adult males equate to a majority of adult men?
    You still haven’t given me your definition.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    DougSeal said:

    You still haven’t given me your definition.
    There are tons of decent definitions of democracy, depending on the cultural setting and historical context we are talking about. The problem with the one you cite is not that it is not useful, it is, but that it is entirely self-serving for the purpose of creating that particular map.
  • DougSeal said:

    You still haven’t given me your definition.
    I'm not giving a definition. Its like saying define life. As I've said time and again, its not hard and fast, its evolved over time. I'll define it as SCOTUS Justice Stewart defined hardcore pornography in Jacobells v Ohio "I know it when I see it"

    But they did give a definition "a majority of men". Why a majority of men? They don't say.

    But having defined it as a majority of men, they then say America was a democracy from 1789 which is when 6% of men could vote.

    Better to have no definition, than to have a definition then to not actually apply it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716
    On topic the US and the UK have the same problem that the constitution is written one way or not at all but what people expect to happen is botched on top by "norms". This doesn't work against a determined and sufficiently psychopathic adversary, because they don't care about the norms.

    The US constitution lets states choose presidential electors and lets an elected house adjuducate disputes. The former is because it's not really designed as a democracy, and the latter because the people who write it had absolutely no idea what the fuck they were doing. If Americans want a democracy they should fix their shitty constitution.
  • Anyone watching Paris Police 1900? Great production values, some nice, smokey fin de siècle interiors and a lovely streak of Grand Guignol. Je suis un fan (that’s enough your shite Franglais-Ed).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,867
    Foxy said:

    Surely NZ should be the oldest democracy? as the first country with female suffrage from 1893.

    I think you’ll find one country beat them to it.

    Ironically, the first place to give women the vote was the Isle of Man.
This discussion has been closed.