I’ll check in later to review the (doubtless lengthy) list of competition-inhibiting regulations @Philip_Thompson will have provided.
Laters!
I half suspect that Johnson wants to be stopped, I think it is going to be fascinating to see what he does if he isn't.
It does seem that a lot of Boris's plans are based on an us versus them electoral campaign. But if them don't provide the ammo it will be interesting to see how he reacts as late October comes around and he still owns No Deal.
That's terrible optics for the protesters. Paramedics literally having to force their way out with a seriously injured casualty can only lose support-and increase the likely hood of a brutal crackdown by the Chinese authorities.
That's terrible optics for the protesters. Paramedics literally having to force their way out with a seriously injured casualty can only lose support-and increase the likely hood of a brutal crackdown by the Chinese authorities.
We have that already. Just our coalitions are hidden under the veil of the Labour and the Conservative Party. Our system is dishonest.
Your arguments lends itself to the election of a government which I agree with however we also elect a legislature and it is proper for that legislature to properly reflect the views of the country. FPTP does not do that.
Our coalitions within the Labour and Conservative Parties are known about prior to the election, not after it. Big difference.
Lol @ “known prior”. Labour voters have no idea what their vote might lead to. Neither did voters for Mrs May. Bozo’s position appears clearer, but time will tell. Nevertheless we got Bozo because of the people who voted for Mrs May, not for Bozo.
Everyone who voted for May knew Boris was in her party. It's not like they voted May and got Farage which can happen in Europe.
It does seem that a lot of Boris's plans are based on an us versus them electoral campaign. But if them don't provide the ammo it will be interesting to see how he reacts as late October comes around and he still owns No Deal.
It is fascinating. I personally think he's bluffing and wants neither No Deal nor a snap election. I see him at the crunch agreeing to an extension for fresh talks with the EU. Then he'll try and get a deal through. After that, succeed or fail, an election in 2020.
The police have to go in now and save this guy at the airport.
The whole world is watching. Incredible.
Next time Scottish Nats and Sturgeon complain about being ignored by Westminster I hope Boris reminds them of what the likes of Xi and Rajoy have done to internal dissenters and separatists and how lucky they are and were to get indyref 2014
And you as a diehard remainer would be first up against the wall, sunshine.
That's terrible optics for the protesters. Paramedics literally having to force their way out with a seriously injured casualty can only lose support-and increase the likely hood of a brutal crackdown by the Chinese authorities.
As opposed to police firing rubber bullets at close range at protestors yesterday, imagine if police did that in Glasgow at Yes campaigners?
I see that @Philip_Thompson thinks it inappropriate to ask what regulations he would like to remove. I am suspicious of claims of general principle unaccompanied by any examples. It's like people claiming that the government could spend less by cutting waste but are wholly unable to identify any examples of this waste.
No it is not like saying we should cut waste. It is like saying we should elect politicians who are responsible for the budget.
The public can elect a government then to cut spending or raise spending as we vote. Do you see the difference @Cyclefree ?
I have given you a specific example re GM foods where consumers' rights will be worse regardless of their ability to vote for this or that politician.
My question still is: what regulations do you think are making us uncompetitive because we are in the EU and which you want to get rid of once we leave? Surely you have 1 or 2 examples.
The question of GM I agree with. I oppose any agreement that forbids labelling, information should be available to the public.
It is a distraction to argue specific regulations rather than the principles.
That's terrible optics for the protesters. Paramedics literally having to force their way out with a seriously injured casualty can only lose support-and increase the likely hood of a brutal crackdown by the Chinese authorities.
As opposed to police firing rubber bullets at close range at protestors yesterday, imagine if police did that in Glasgow at Yes campaigners?
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
I’m not pretending it isn’t a form of democracy, hence elected dictatorship. Its a well known phrase in political science.
As we don’t have separation of powers, a party can be given a majority on circa 30% of the vote and then essentially have unchecked power over anything for the next 5 years. This is a fact. Parliament is sovereign.
Yes, it is a good system with accountability. If you don't like what the party does [and no party has ever got a majority on 30%] then you can vote differently at the next election. Votes actually matter.
When we have the inevitable public inquiry into the whole Brexit disaster, I think the remit should include looking at the appalling level of public understanding of the British system of democracy.
The police have to go in now and save this guy at the airport.
The whole world is watching. Incredible.
Next time Scottish Nats and Sturgeon complain about being ignored by Westminster I hope Boris reminds them of what the likes of Xi and Rajoy have done to internal dissenters and separatists and how lucky they are and were to get indyref 2014
And you as a diehard remainer would be first up against the wall, sunshine.
No, as I respect democracy
We are not talking about democracy here we are talking about the regime getting rid of its enemies and as a diehard remainer you are an enemy of this current regime.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
I’m not pretending it isn’t a form of democracy, hence elected dictatorship. Its a well known phrase in political science.
As we don’t have separation of powers, a party can be given a majority on circa 30% of the vote and then essentially have unchecked power over anything for the next 5 years. This is a fact. Parliament is sovereign.
Yes, it is a good system with accountability. If you don't like what the party does [and no party has ever got a majority on 30%] then you can vote differently at the next election. Votes actually matter.
The police have to go in now and save this guy at the airport.
The whole world is watching. Incredible.
Next time Scottish Nats and Sturgeon complain about being ignored by Westminster I hope Boris reminds them of what the likes of Xi and Rajoy have done to internal dissenters and separatists and how lucky they are and were to get indyref 2014
And you as a diehard remainer would be first up against the wall, sunshine.
No, as I respect democracy
We are not talking about democracy here we are talking about the regime getting rid of its enemies and as a diehard remainer you are an enemy of this current regime.
Half the Cabinet voted Remain but they back Boris to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal like me and respect the Leave vote
Congress is the latest to start investigating Epstein's apparent suicide over the weekend, with new reports raising questions about the federal jail where he was being held. One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer....
Congress is the latest to start investigating Epstein's apparent suicide over the weekend, with new reports raising questions about the federal jail where he was being held. One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer....
I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories, but this one....
I’ll check in later to review the (doubtless lengthy) list of competition-inhibiting regulations @Philip_Thompson will have provided.
Laters!
I half suspect that Johnson wants to be stopped, I think it is going to be fascinating to see what he does if he isn't.
It does seem that a lot of Boris's plans are based on an us versus them electoral campaign. But if them don't provide the ammo it will be interesting to see how he reacts as late October comes around and he still owns No Deal.
It's all a bit phoney war at the moment, isn't it? The government is making determined statements, telling us that it will spend lots of money, making plans. But what happens once those plans become public- that will have to happen before the big day, won't it? The current relative popularity of No Deal might last, but then again, it might not.
When is the Point of No Return for an October 31, no matter what Brexit? The later it is, the more chance the PM has for an almighty reverse ferret, blaming Gove and Cummings for not being able to come up with a secure plan for November and onwards.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
I’m not pretending it isn’t a form of democracy, hence elected dictatorship. Its a well known phrase in political science.
As we don’t have separation of powers, a party can be given a majority on circa 30% of the vote and then essentially have unchecked power over anything for the next 5 years. This is a fact. Parliament is sovereign.
Yes, it is a good system with accountability. If you don't like what the party does [and no party has ever got a majority on 30%] then you can vote differently at the next election. Votes actually matter.
Most votes don’t mean diddley squat
Yes it does.
How does a labour voter in Esher or a Tory in bootle have any impact on the outcome your failing to see that your desire to ‘take back control’ is meaningless to the vast majority of voters.
Congress is the latest to start investigating Epstein's apparent suicide over the weekend, with new reports raising questions about the federal jail where he was being held. One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer....
I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories, but this one....
It's not even a conspiracy. He was clearly murdered.
I was taught that they're to do both in Modern Studies, no need for Burke; although it was a comprehensive.
It’s quite simple
1 in the best interests of the nation 2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents 3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents
When we have the inevitable public inquiry into the whole Brexit disaster, I think the remit should include looking at the appalling level of public understanding of the British system of democracy.
As opposed to the appalling refusal of most MPs to respect the largest vote in post War history no surprise we get results like this poll
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
I’m not pretending it isn’t a form of democracy, hence elected dictatorship. Its a well known phrase in political science.
As we don’t have separation of powers, a party can be given a majority on circa 30% of the vote and then essentially have unchecked power over anything for the next 5 years. This is a fact. Parliament is sovereign.
Yes, it is a good system with accountability. If you don't like what the party does [and no party has ever got a majority on 30%] then you can vote differently at the next election. Votes actually matter.
Most votes don’t mean diddley squat
Yes it does.
How does a labour voter in Esher or a Tory in bootle have any impact on the outcome your failing to see that your desire to ‘take back control’ is meaningless to the vast majority of voters.
The Labour voter in Esher, like in Surbiton, will vote Liberal Democrat and mumbling the words, "Bollocks to Brexit" as he puts his cross on the ballot paper.
When we have the inevitable public inquiry into the whole Brexit disaster, I think the remit should include looking at the appalling level of public understanding of the British system of democracy.
As opposed to the appalling refusal of most MPs to respect the largest vote in post War history no surprise we get results like this poll
I look forward to you attempting to implement Labour manifesto policies after Labour wins a general election.
I was taught that they're to do both in Modern Studies, no need for Burke; although it was a comprehensive.
It’s quite simple
1 in the best interests of the nation 2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents 3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents
I view Westminster as a better form of democracy by ensuring the most popular MP in each constituency is the only one elected. If you want to win the election, become more popular - this can lead to huge wipeouts as we saw in Scotland in 2015.
Wrong, as usual.
Sneaking a 30% plurality does not mean "most popular". Unless you are arguing for AV...
And as for safe seats, well, anyone who supports such a system is neither a libertarian nor a democrat.
Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.
Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
I’m not pretending it isn’t a form of democracy, hence elected dictatorship. Its a well known phrase in political science.
As we don’t have separation of powers, a party can be given a majority on circa 30% of the vote and then essentially have unchecked power over anything for the next 5 years. This is a fact. Parliament is sovereign.
Yes, it is a good system with accountability. If you don't like what the party does [and no party has ever got a majority on 30%] then you can vote differently at the next election. Votes actually matter.
Most votes don’t mean diddley squat
Yes it does.
100 conservatives of various flavours stand for election and 1 socialist. There are 102 electors. The 100 conservatives and 2 socialist. The socialist gets elected on 2 votes.
I know it is an extreme example, but that is what we are doing.
Ok another one: Party A has 49% of the vote split evenly across the country. Party B and C have 25.5% split evenly across exactly half of the country each. Party B and C therefore win all of the seats and party A wins none.
Again extreme but it demonstrates the bizarre system we operate under.
When we have the inevitable public inquiry into the whole Brexit disaster, I think the remit should include looking at the appalling level of public understanding of the British system of democracy.
As opposed to the appalling refusal of most MPs to respect the largest vote in post War history no surprise we get results like this poll
I look forward to you attempting to implement Labour manifesto policies after Labour wins a general election.
If Labour wins fair enough, it can implement its manifesto even if I will oppose it at the next general election the result of the last one must be delivered
I was taught that they're to do both in Modern Studies, no need for Burke; although it was a comprehensive.
It’s quite simple
1 in the best interests of the nation 2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents 3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents
Where did you learn that ?
Google Erskin May obligations of MPs but if you actually mean where, then only because I was interested I very much doubt it was at school.
I see that @Philip_Thompson thinks it inappropriate to ask what regulations he would like to remove. I am suspicious of claims of general principle unaccompanied by any examples. It's like people claiming that the government could spend less by cutting waste but are wholly unable to identify any examples of this waste.
No it is not like saying we should cut waste. It is like saying we should elect politicians who are responsible for the budget.
The public can elect a government then to cut spending or raise spending as we vote. Do you see the difference @Cyclefree ?
I have given you a specific example re GM foods where consumers' rights will be worse regardless of their ability to vote for this or that politician.
My question still is: what regulations do you think are making us uncompetitive because we are in the EU and which you want to get rid of once we leave? Surely you have 1 or 2 examples.
The question of GM I agree with. I oppose any agreement that forbids labelling, information should be available to the public.
It is a distraction to argue specific regulations rather than the principles.
Well, however much you or I may oppose GM foods they will get forced on us regardless of our votes. We'll be taking back control from the EU where we have some say and giving it to the US where we will have none.
Specific examples are not distractions. They illuminate the principles. We have a say in the EU, imperfect as it is. We have no say outside it. The trajectory is wrong.
Anyway must be off for a bit. Thanks for the chat.
In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.
When we have the inevitable public inquiry into the whole Brexit disaster, I think the remit should include looking at the appalling level of public understanding of the British system of democracy.
As opposed to the appalling refusal of most MPs to respect the largest vote in post War history no surprise we get results like this poll
I look forward to you attempting to implement Labour manifesto policies after Labour wins a general election.
It wasn’t the largest vote in post war history the 1992 election was, get your facts right or present them better
I was taught that they're to do both in Modern Studies, no need for Burke; although it was a comprehensive.
It’s quite simple
1 in the best interests of the nation 2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents 3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents
Where did you learn that ?
Google Erskin May obligations of MPs but if you actually mean where, then only because I was interested I very much doubt it was at school.
apparently it's illegal to teach politics to secondary school pupils - that's why Scotland calls their course "Modern Studies".
What about the party manifesto they were elected on? Is this not worth anything according to Erskin May?
In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.
When we have the inevitable public inquiry into the whole Brexit disaster, I think the remit should include looking at the appalling level of public understanding of the British system of democracy.
As opposed to the appalling refusal of most MPs to respect the largest vote in post War history no surprise we get results like this poll
I look forward to you attempting to implement Labour manifesto policies after Labour wins a general election.
It wasn’t the largest vote in post war history the 1992 election was, get your facts right or present them better
It was the largest number of votes cast for any single ballot option.
I view Westminster as a better form of democracy by ensuring the most popular MP in each constituency is the only one elected. If you want to win the election, become more popular - this can lead to huge wipeouts as we saw in Scotland in 2015.
Wrong, as usual.
Sneaking a 30% plurality does not mean "most popular". Unless you are arguing for AV...
And as for safe seats, well, anyone who supports such a system is neither a libertarian nor a democrat.
Unless you have another definition for most, most votes is most popular.
I don't support a system of safe seats. No seat is safe any seat can change hands.
In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.
You're just messing with us now aren't you?
No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.
No he certainly doesn't see himself as Thatcher. Churchill is the model. Read his book on WSC - which, despite the snotty reviews, is very readable like the rest of the Johnson corpus. Cometh the hour, cometh the man, etc.
Churchill wasn't a Conservative or a Tory - he was a Liberal Unionist - which might surprise some of the professed Tories. I find that comparison curious given the degree to which we were told by @HYUFD and others how a No Deal Brexit would endanger the Union before Johnson became Prime Minister.
If a No Deal Brexit is such a high risk to the Union, why is Johnson contemplating it when May clearly couldn't? May was in fact the Unionist - Johnson is much more about the preservation of himself and the Conservative Party (in that order) than the preservation of the Union.
Only 46% of Scots back independence in the latest Ashcroft poll including Don't Knows even with No Deal looming, only 1% more than voted Yes in 2014
By the same token only 43% support staying in the Union, a massive 12% below those who voted NO in 2014.
In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.
You're just messing with us now aren't you?
No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.
The random ballot is by far and away the best system in ensuring that all votes count and all opinions are (eventually) represented.
I view Westminster as a better form of democracy by ensuring the most popular MP in each constituency is the only one elected. If you want to win the election, become more popular - this can lead to huge wipeouts as we saw in Scotland in 2015.
Wrong, as usual.
Sneaking a 30% plurality does not mean "most popular". Unless you are arguing for AV...
And as for safe seats, well, anyone who supports such a system is neither a libertarian nor a democrat.
Unless you have another definition for most, most votes is most popular.
I don't support a system of safe seats. No seat is safe any seat can change hands.
I see that @Philip_Thompson thinks it inappropriate to ask what regulations he would like to remove. I am suspicious of claims of general principle unaccompanied by any examples. It's like people claiming that the government could spend less by cutting waste but are wholly unable to identify any examples of this waste.
No it is not like saying we should cut waste. It is like saying we should elect politicians who are responsible for the budget.
The public can elect a government then to cut spending or raise spending as we vote. Do you see the difference @Cyclefree ?
I have given you a specific example re GM foods where consumers' rights will be worse regardless of their ability to vote for this or that politician.
My question still is: what regulations do you think are making us uncompetitive because we are in the EU and which you want to get rid of once we leave? Surely you have 1 or 2 examples.
The question of GM I agree with. I oppose any agreement that forbids labelling, information should be available to the public.
It is a distraction to argue specific regulations rather than the principles.
Well, however much you or I may oppose GM foods they will get forced on us regardless of our votes. We'll be taking back control from the EU where we have some say and giving it to the US where we will have none.
Specific examples are not distractions. They illuminate the principles. We have a say in the EU, imperfect as it is. We have no say outside it. The trajectory is wrong.
Anyway must be off for a bit. Thanks for the chat.
For the record I don't oppose GM foods I oppose barriers to labelling.
We have a say outside the EU. The only reason there will be any barriers is if we agree them, and we can end them whenever we want. In the EU those barriers could be forced upon us without our say and we couldn't reverse them.
I view Westminster as a better form of democracy by ensuring the most popular MP in each constituency is the only one elected. If you want to win the election, become more popular - this can lead to huge wipeouts as we saw in Scotland in 2015.
Wrong, as usual.
Sneaking a 30% plurality does not mean "most popular". Unless you are arguing for AV...
And as for safe seats, well, anyone who supports such a system is neither a libertarian nor a democrat.
Unless you have another definition for most, most votes is most popular.
I don't support a system of safe seats. No seat is safe any seat can change hands.
That’s deluded stupidity
Can tell you have no argument so just saying that.
I was taught that they're to do both in Modern Studies, no need for Burke; although it was a comprehensive.
It’s quite simple
1 in the best interests of the nation 2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents 3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents
Where did you learn that ?
Google Erskin May obligations of MPs but if you actually mean where, then only because I was interested I very much doubt it was at school.
apparently it's illegal to teach politics to secondary school pupils - that's why Scotland calls their course "Modern Studies".
What about the party manifesto they were elected on? Is this not worth anything according to Erskin May?
It’s perfectly logical to elect members of parliament to take on the responsibility of acting in the best interests of their constituents rather than represent their views. We expect them to spend more than a nano second considering the implications of what the are voting unlike the voting public.
In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.
You're just messing with us now aren't you?
No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.
In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.
You're just messing with us now aren't you?
No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.
I was taught that they're to do both in Modern Studies, no need for Burke; although it was a comprehensive.
It’s quite simple
1 in the best interests of the nation 2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents 3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents
Where did you learn that ?
Google Erskin May obligations of MPs but if you actually mean where, then only because I was interested I very much doubt it was at school.
apparently it's illegal to teach politics to secondary school pupils - that's why Scotland calls their course "Modern Studies".
What about the party manifesto they were elected on? Is this not worth anything according to Erskin May?
It’s perfectly logical to elect members of parliament to take on the responsibility of acting in the best interests of their constituents rather than represent their views. We expect them to spend more than a nano second considering the implications of what the are voting unlike the voting public.
That wasn't my question - what role do the party manifestos play in Erskine May's written rules
I view Westminster as a better form of democracy by ensuring the most popular MP in each constituency is the only one elected. If you want to win the election, become more popular - this can lead to huge wipeouts as we saw in Scotland in 2015.
Wrong, as usual.
Sneaking a 30% plurality does not mean "most popular". Unless you are arguing for AV...
And as for safe seats, well, anyone who supports such a system is neither a libertarian nor a democrat.
Unless you have another definition for most, most votes is most popular.
I don't support a system of safe seats. No seat is safe any seat can change hands.
That’s deluded stupidity
Can tell you have no argument so just saying that.
If we had multi member constituencies elected by STV then every vote counts under FPTP most votes against the obvious donkey wearing the right color rosette mean didley squat.
Congress is the latest to start investigating Epstein's apparent suicide over the weekend, with new reports raising questions about the federal jail where he was being held. One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer....
I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories, but this one....
It's not even a conspiracy. He was clearly murdered.
If I’ve understood the discussion today, which has been interesting:
- vote in an election but not for the FPTP winner = democracy OK - my MP votes in Parliament against a Bill that is nonetheless passed = democracy OK - my Government votes against an EU measure that passes on QMV = democracy NOT OK
So participating but losing is OK in the first two cases, it’s democracy in action, but not the third even though the “rules” were agreed to by my democratically elected Government.
In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.
You're just messing with us now aren't you?
No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.
I was joking
Sorry, (did you study the same course?)(joke)
No but I have to say when it came to the LD leadership election I didn't know who to vote for. I decided on the flimsiest of reasons and then fretted about it, before I told myself to get a grip and that it was exceedingly unlikely that my vote was going to make any difference whatsoever.
Congress is the latest to start investigating Epstein's apparent suicide over the weekend, with new reports raising questions about the federal jail where he was being held. One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer....
I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories, but this one....
It's not even a conspiracy. He was clearly murdered.
In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.
You're just messing with us now aren't you?
No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.
Who decides what is rational?As long as a voter has engaged in some form of reasoning or calculation, the decision as to how to vote is surely rational..
I view Westminster as a better form of democracy by ensuring the most popular MP in each constituency is the only one elected. If you want to win the election, become more popular - this can lead to huge wipeouts as we saw in Scotland in 2015.
Wrong, as usual.
Sneaking a 30% plurality does not mean "most popular". Unless you are arguing for AV...
And as for safe seats, well, anyone who supports such a system is neither a libertarian nor a democrat.
Unless you have another definition for most, most votes is most popular.
I don't support a system of safe seats. No seat is safe any seat can change hands.
That’s deluded stupidity
Can tell you have no argument so just saying that.
If we had multi member constituencies elected by STV then every vote counts under FPTP most votes against the obvious donkey wearing the right color rosette mean didley squat.
Every vote counts in FPTP. The right colour only matters if it's the choice of most individuals within that constituency and they can change their mind. No seat is safe from that.
I was taught that they're to do both in Modern Studies, no need for Burke; although it was a comprehensive.
It’s quite simple
1 in the best interests of the nation 2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents 3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents
Where did you learn that ?
Google Erskin May obligations of MPs but if you actually mean where, then only because I was interested I very much doubt it was at school.
apparently it's illegal to teach politics to secondary school pupils - that's why Scotland calls their course "Modern Studies".
What about the party manifesto they were elected on? Is this not worth anything according to Erskin May?
It’s perfectly logical to elect members of parliament to take on the responsibility of acting in the best interests of their constituents rather than represent their views. We expect them to spend more than a nano second considering the implications of what the are voting unlike the voting public.
That wasn't my question - what role do the party manifestos play in Erskine May's written rules
An MP once elected represents all of his/her constituents therefore the manifesto is irrelevant unless you get to point three
In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.
You're just messing with us now aren't you?
No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.
Who decides what is rational?As long as a voter has engaged in some form of reasoning or calculation, the decision as to how to vote is surely rational..
Sorry, voting is definitely in the irrational column unfortunately because of the numbers involved.
Not sure who gets to decide these matters - perhaps there's some sort of committee?
There's no such thing as a safe seat in this country, just ask Michael Portillo, not like PR where sitting on top of your parties list means you are virtually guaranteed a seat whether your party does well or badly.
If I’ve understood the discussion today, which has been interesting:
- vote in an election but not for the FPTP winner = democracy OK - my MP votes in Parliament against a Bill that is nonetheless passed = democracy OK - my Government votes against an EU measure that passes on QMV = democracy NOT OK
So participating but losing is OK in the first two cases, it’s democracy in action, but not the third even though the “rules” were agreed to by my democratically elected Government.
No you have it wrong. Yes the third is democracy but it is not democracy of our voters. The question isn't whether it is democratic or not, it is whether we want our voters to decide or not.
I view Westminster as a better form of democracy by ensuring the most popular MP in each constituency is the only one elected. If you want to win the election, become more popular - this can lead to huge wipeouts as we saw in Scotland in 2015.
Wrong, as usual.
Sneaking a 30% plurality does not mean "most popular". Unless you are arguing for AV...
And as for safe seats, well, anyone who supports such a system is neither a libertarian nor a democrat.
Unless you have another definition for most, most votes is most popular.
I don't support a system of safe seats. No seat is safe any seat can change hands.
That’s deluded stupidity
Can tell you have no argument so just saying that.
If we had multi member constituencies elected by STV then every vote counts under FPTP most votes against the obvious donkey wearing the right color rosette mean didley squat.
Every vote counts in FPTP. The right colour only matters if it's the choice of most individuals within that constituency and they can change their mind. No seat is safe from that.
I’m sorry but that is totally delusional FPTP is an abomination of a voting system which facilitates the election of anyone representing the right party and ignoring those who opposed them.
I was taught that they're to do both in Modern Studies, no need for Burke; although it was a comprehensive.
It’s quite simple
1 in the best interests of the nation 2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents 3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents
Where did you learn that ?
Google Erskin May obligations of MPs but if you actually mean where, then only because I was interested I very much doubt it was at school.
apparently it's illegal to teach politics to secondary school pupils - that's why Scotland calls their course "Modern Studies".
What about the party manifesto they were elected on? Is this not worth anything according to Erskin May?
It’s perfectly logical to elect members of parliament to take on the responsibility of acting in the best interests of their constituents rather than represent their views. We expect them to spend more than a nano second considering the implications of what the are voting unlike the voting public.
That wasn't my question - what role do the party manifestos play in Erskine May's written rules
An MP once elected represents all of his/her constituents therefore the manifesto is irrelevant unless you get to point three
I guess May wasn't around for the manifesto commitments going through the lords unchallenged convention
There's no such thing as a safe seat in this country, just ask Michael Portillo, not like PR where sitting on top of your parties list means you are virtually guaranteed a seat whether your party does well or badly.
Specialist subject: total bollocks.
Party lists: also bollocks.
Absolutely the idea of safe seats is total bollocks. There are safer seats but only because the voters vote that way - and they are entitled to vote differently if they choose to do so.
In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.
You're just messing with us now aren't you?
No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.
I was joking
Sorry, (did you study the same course?)(joke)
No but I have to say when it came to the LD leadership election I didn't know who to vote for. I decided on the flimsiest of reasons and then fretted about it, before I told myself to get a grip and that it was exceedingly unlikely that my vote was going to make any difference whatsoever.
Oddly enough I actually meant most votes mean diddley squat in the lib dem leadership I voted for Davey only because we could move on to Swinson at a later date.
You can post as much of your partisan sophistry as you like. Fact remains that I fully expect to die without a single vote of mine at any General Election having contributed toward the election of a sympathetic representative, despite my views being supported by anything up to a quarter of the electors each time.
I think we should get a vote we have to use ourselves and another 5 we can either use or sell on the open market. The state should issue another set of votes equal to the ones issued to the public which are auctioned off to the highest bidder.
It will be a corrupt system, but not much worse than currently. And at least ordinary voters and the public purse share in the proceeds.
Congress is the latest to start investigating Epstein's apparent suicide over the weekend, with new reports raising questions about the federal jail where he was being held. One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer....
I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories, but this one....
It's not even a conspiracy. He was clearly murdered.
It is a conspiracy. And in line with many other conspiracy theories, it is probably true.
If I’ve understood the discussion today, which has been interesting:
- vote in an election but not for the FPTP winner = democracy OK - my MP votes in Parliament against a Bill that is nonetheless passed = democracy OK - my Government votes against an EU measure that passes on QMV = democracy NOT OK
So participating but losing is OK in the first two cases, it’s democracy in action, but not the third even though the “rules” were agreed to by my democratically elected Government.
No you have it wrong. Yes the third is democracy but it is not democracy of our voters. The question isn't whether it is democratic or not, it is whether we want our voters to decide or not.
Ah, I see. For democracy on a national level, it’s OK because all voters are citizens of the nation but for democracy on a EU level it’s NOT OK because all voters are citizens of member nations of the EU.
There's no such thing as a safe seat in this country, just ask Michael Portillo, not like PR where sitting on top of your parties list means you are virtually guaranteed a seat whether your party does well or badly.
Specialist subject: total bollocks.
Party lists: also bollocks.
Party lists are as bad as FPTP in a multi member constituency elected under STV I can vote for different parties in order if I prefer the individual over the party slate but you know all this so I’ll give up and leave it to those who when asked important questions about which regulations they want scrapped or which EU imposed laws they don’t like can have the space to answer.
Regarding the Comres poll, no doubt the methodology was flawed, but as soon as I read that there was an outcry, I knew it was a pro-Brexit poll.
Someone also posted another poll on prorogation lower down the last thread, with a Tweet claiming it was an unbiased question, but it wasn't. For one thing, Conservative politicians were clearly mentioned, and that was a red (blue?) rag to a bull.
In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.
You're just messing with us now aren't you?
No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.
I was joking
Sorry, (did you study the same course?)(joke)
No but I have to say when it came to the LD leadership election I didn't know who to vote for. I decided on the flimsiest of reasons and then fretted about it, before I told myself to get a grip and that it was exceedingly unlikely that my vote was going to make any difference whatsoever.
Oddly enough I actually meant most votes mean diddley squat in the lib dem leadership I voted for Davey only because we could move on to Swinson at a later date.
We have that already. Just our coalitions are hidden under the veil of the Labour and the Conservative Party. Our system is dishonest.
Your arguments lends itself to the election of a government which I agree with however we also elect a legislature and it is proper for that legislature to properly reflect the views of the country. FPTP does not do that.
Our coalitions within the Labour and Conservative Parties are known about prior to the election, not after it. Big difference.
Lol @ “known prior”. Labour voters have no idea what their vote might lead to. Neither did voters for Mrs May. Bozo’s position appears clearer, but time will tell. Nevertheless we got Bozo because of the people who voted for Mrs May, not for Bozo.
Everyone who voted for May knew Boris was in her party. It's not like they voted May and got Farage which can happen in Europe.
Pitiful.
It is not really. This has always been the sceptics' strongest argument. The appointment of Ursula von Leyen as European Commission President was astonishingly undemocratic.
We have that already. Just our coalitions are hidden under the veil of the Labour and the Conservative Party. Our system is dishonest.
Your arguments lends itself to the election of a government which I agree with however we also elect a legislature and it is proper for that legislature to properly reflect the views of the country. FPTP does not do that.
Our coalitions within the Labour and Conservative Parties are known about prior to the election, not after it. Big difference.
Lol @ “known prior”. Labour voters have no idea what their vote might lead to. Neither did voters for Mrs May. Bozo’s position appears clearer, but time will tell. Nevertheless we got Bozo because of the people who voted for Mrs May, not for Bozo.
Everyone who voted for May knew Boris was in her party. It's not like they voted May and got Farage which can happen in Europe.
Pitiful.
It is not really. This has always been the sceptics' strongest argument. The appointment of Ursula von Leyen as European Commission President was astonishingly undemocratic.
Why do you say it was astonishingly undemocratic? What reforms do you think would answer the sceptics’ concerns?
We have that already. Just our coalitions are hidden under the veil of the Labour and the Conservative Party. Our system is dishonest.
Your arguments lends itself to the election of a government which I agree with however we also elect a legislature and it is proper for that legislature to properly reflect the views of the country. FPTP does not do that.
Our coalitions within the Labour and Conservative Parties are known about prior to the election, not after it. Big difference.
Lol @ “known prior”. Labour voters have no idea what their vote might lead to. Neither did voters for Mrs May. Bozo’s position appears clearer, but time will tell. Nevertheless we got Bozo because of the people who voted for Mrs May, not for Bozo.
Everyone who voted for May knew Boris was in her party. It's not like they voted May and got Farage which can happen in Europe.
Pitiful.
It is not really. This has always been the sceptics' strongest argument. The appointment of Ursula von Leyen as European Commission President was astonishingly undemocratic.
Why do you say it was astonishingly undemocratic? What reforms do you think would answer the sceptics’ concerns?
Well Ursula could have been a candidate for European Commission President at the Euro elections for a start.
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.
And that is the question I was answering....
The specific question I asked you was whether you wanted to get rid of the MiFiD provisions requiring firms to provide transaction and order information to regulators so that they can monitor for market abuse/insider trading.
And your answer is....?
That’s an unusually stupid question from you Cyclefree
I don’t want to abolish to prohibition on murder in the UK. That doesn’t mean I believe every jot and tittle of U.K. law is perfect
Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
MiFID II
MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.
The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.
And that is the question I was answering....
Fair enough. It is their market though and we are the ones that want to participate. Which plays in to @rcs1000's point. If we want to trade Deutsche Bank then we need to follow them rules.
Deutsche Bank benefits from access to the U.K. capital markets. If the EU wishes to raise its cost of capital then that’s up to it
Besides I’m sure we can trade Swiss companies again
Sat in Dublin airport for my flight home. Interesting trip around Irish grocery retailers - plenty of opportunities I can see for new custom. Then a meeting with a large supermarket buyer where we already supply a couple of products. She is excited about the market and the potential for growth.
But - and its a big but - with Brexit looming large in the window her business is prioritising domestic producers due to the absolute uncertainty of how things will work logistically post "hardest of hard Brexits" and what it will cost in extra costs and tariffs.
Which means that for any UK producers wanting to expand into our closest export market, the door is closed. By us. Whilst simultaneously saying "there is no door" and "don't worry Varadkar is an idiot who will cave in.
Sat in Dublin airport for my flight home. Interesting trip around Irish grocery retailers - plenty of opportunities I can see for new custom. Then a meeting with a large supermarket buyer where we already supply a couple of products. She is excited about the market and the potential for growth.
But - and its a big but - with Brexit looming large in the window her business is prioritising domestic producers due to the absolute uncertainty of how things will work logistically post "hardest of hard Brexits" and what it will cost in extra costs and tariffs.
Which means that for any UK producers wanting to expand into our closest export market, the door is closed. By us. Whilst simultaneously saying "there is no door" and "don't worry Varadkar is an idiot who will cave in.
A senior city IT director of my acquaintance was telling me that the consultancy firms are offering free graduates as they don't have anywhere to place them.
Oh and the Indian consultancies are sending people back home (as in terminate the house rental and sell your car) as no-one is starting IT projects unless absolutely essential
Sat in Dublin airport for my flight home. Interesting trip around Irish grocery retailers - plenty of opportunities I can see for new custom. Then a meeting with a large supermarket buyer where we already supply a couple of products. She is excited about the market and the potential for growth.
But - and its a big but - with Brexit looming large in the window her business is prioritising domestic producers due to the absolute uncertainty of how things will work logistically post "hardest of hard Brexits" and what it will cost in extra costs and tariffs.
Which means that for any UK producers wanting to expand into our closest export market, the door is closed. By us. Whilst simultaneously saying "there is no door" and "don't worry Varadkar is an idiot who will cave in.
A senior city IT director of my acquaintance was telling me that the consultancy firms are offering free graduates as they don't have anywhere to place them.
Oh and the Indian consultancies are sending people back home (as in terminate the house rental and sell your car) as no-one is starting IT projects unless absolutely essential
Another proof point that business has been give the nod that Boris is serious. Whereas with May, Hammond and Clarke were given them the nod she would always extend.
A senior city IT director of my acquaintance was telling me that the consultancy firms are offering free graduates as they don't have anywhere to place them.
Oh and the Indian consultancies are sending people back home (as in terminate the house rental and sell your car) as no-one is starting IT projects unless absolutely essential
Wazzocks like Mr Thompson boffing off about abstracts won't understand this, but crash Brexit - even the threat of it - is like a bomb going off in the economy. Right now business is backing away slowly not quite believing it will come to this and wondering how they can protect themselves from the worst of the damage to come.
Comments
They will be identified tomorrow, quickly tried, and they will go to jail for years. Beijing will demand brutal judicial severity.
The Orange Racist may be gone in just over a year.
Hmm. Tipping point in psychology, or some 'new' demonstrators giving a casus belli?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/hong-kong-protests-police-rubber-bullets-demonstration-violence-a9054366.html
Tomorrow could be nasty.
It is a distraction to argue specific regulations rather than the principles.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1161246052638441477
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-death-shrieking-heard-jail-cell-morning-he-died-metropolitan-correctional-center/
On the morning of Jeffrey Epstein's death there was shouting and shrieking from his jail cell, a source familiar with the situation told CBS News. Corrections officers attempted to revive him while saying "breathe, Epstein, breathe."
Congress is the latest to start investigating Epstein's apparent suicide over the weekend, with new reports raising questions about the federal jail where he was being held. One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer....
When is the Point of No Return for an October 31, no matter what Brexit? The later it is, the more chance the PM has for an almighty reverse ferret, blaming Gove and Cummings for not being able to come up with a secure plan for November and onwards.
It’s quite simple
1 in the best interests of the nation
2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents
3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents
Sneaking a 30% plurality does not mean "most popular". Unless you are arguing for AV...
And as for safe seats, well, anyone who supports such a system is neither a libertarian nor a democrat.
I know it is an extreme example, but that is what we are doing.
Ok another one: Party A has 49% of the vote split evenly across the country. Party B and C have 25.5% split evenly across exactly half of the country each. Party B and C therefore win all of the seats and party A wins none.
Again extreme but it demonstrates the bizarre system we operate under.
Specific examples are not distractions. They illuminate the principles. We have a say in the EU, imperfect as it is. We have no say outside it. The trajectory is wrong.
Anyway must be off for a bit. Thanks for the chat.
It wasn’t the largest vote in post war history the 1992 election was, get your facts right or present them better
What about the party manifesto they were elected on? Is this not worth anything according to Erskin May?
Leave 2016 > Tory 1992.
I don't support a system of safe seats. No seat is safe any seat can change hands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot
We have a say outside the EU. The only reason there will be any barriers is if we agree them, and we can end them whenever we want. In the EU those barriers could be forced upon us without our say and we couldn't reverse them.
A bit but not totally.
The point is that the 2 statements "My vote doesn't count" and "All votes count the same" can be reconciled.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/thirty-two-stories-jeffrey-epstein-prison-death/596029/
- vote in an election but not for the FPTP winner = democracy OK
- my MP votes in Parliament against a Bill that is nonetheless passed = democracy OK
- my Government votes against an EU measure that passes on QMV = democracy NOT OK
So participating but losing is OK in the first two cases, it’s democracy in action, but not the third even though the “rules” were agreed to by my democratically elected Government.
"that seemed legit"
https://twitter.com/jdpoc/status/1161270313583292417?s=20
Not sure who gets to decide these matters - perhaps there's some sort of committee?
You may have found yet another fatal flaw of -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
Party lists: also bollocks.
Faked, apparently.
Oddly enough I actually meant most votes mean diddley squat in the lib dem leadership I voted for Davey only because we could move on to Swinson at a later date.
https://twitter.com/justin_halpern/status/1161125017649762304?s=20
If I am believing obvious internet spoofs, it is time I got off the Net. Later.
It will be a corrupt system, but not much worse than currently. And at least ordinary voters and the public purse share in the proceeds.
Someone also posted another poll on prorogation lower down the last thread, with a Tweet claiming it was an unbiased question, but it wasn't. For one thing, Conservative politicians were clearly mentioned, and that was a red (blue?) rag to a bull.
This thread is boring me now though.
Later gang
I don’t want to abolish to prohibition on murder in the UK. That doesn’t mean I believe every jot and tittle of U.K. law is perfect
Besides I’m sure we can trade Swiss companies again
But - and its a big but - with Brexit looming large in the window her business is prioritising domestic producers due to the absolute uncertainty of how things will work logistically post "hardest of hard Brexits" and what it will cost in extra costs and tariffs.
Which means that for any UK producers wanting to expand into our closest export market, the door is closed. By us. Whilst simultaneously saying "there is no door" and "don't worry Varadkar is an idiot who will cave in.
Oh and the Indian consultancies are sending people back home (as in terminate the house rental and sell your car) as no-one is starting IT projects unless absolutely essential