Spending money and effort to become clear challenger in never-going-to-change-hands seats is the very definition of a waste of resources.
There's no such thing as a seat that can never change hands. Just varying degrees of likelihood of them doing so. No Lib Dem thinks of any seat as being safe... not even any of our own.
Really? Wasn't lib dem overconfidence in 2015 largely based on the idea of "strongholds"?
Supported by all that Ashcroft constituency polling
And ignoring what was being said by pb.com contributors on the ground....
I think that the biggest problem for Lib dems is nothing to do with their own performance or leader but everything to do with Corbyn and the risk he poses. It is no longer safe to vote Lib dem when John McDonnell could end up running the economy. I mean May is not very right wing, having adopted a number of Ed Millibands proposals.
The problem with that line of argument is that, even though a government headed by Corbyn and Macdonald would probably be a disaster, would it really be so much worse than the chaos and incompetence of Mrs May and her gang? They are now so disastrous for the country that their being replaced by Labour is not that much of a threat.
Many will not agree even now. But I suspect enough will for Labour to sneak in.
Lib Dems have won all three seats in the London Bridge & West Bermondsey By election so that means Southwark ends up LAB 49 LD 14.
Another centre left pro Remain protest vote?
Are you ever going to run out of sour grapes ? Your guy did okay in Lewisham East - he seemed well known around Grove Park (not surprisingly) but less so. I thought the Greens might have done better from the local contests.
The problem with that line of argument is that, even though a government headed by Corbyn and Macdonald would probably be a disaster, would it really be so much worse than the chaos and incompetence of Mrs May and her gang? They are now so disastrous for the country that their being replaced by Labour is not that much of a threat.
Of course it would be an immense disaster, and what's more it would be a disaster on top of any damage done by Brexit. It's not either-or: you'd get both, cumulatively.
As it happens, this government is actually quite competent: unemployment is very low, the economy is trundling along as well as could be expected given the referendum result, they are getting on with infrastructure, boosting housing, and pursuing small but welcome reforms in other areas . Taxes are being collected, strikes are at an all-time low, public services are in reasonable shape given the economic challenges, I'm not quite sure what you think is disastrous about it - it's better than most of the post-war governments we have had, despite the Brexit chaos.
You are exactly right, it staggers me when people say this Government is incompetent, things are really pretty good especially compared to our recent past.
Given that it looks like the government are set to give the NHS a huge funding boost, ~£350m per week extra, can anyone explain to me why this wasn't the main campaign promise?!
Stick it on the side of a bus and watch the votes stack up.
Is there anyone at CCHQ with even the slightest bit of political sense left?
Given that it looks like the government are set to give the NHS a huge funding boost, ~£350m per week extra, can anyone explain to me why this wasn't the main campaign promise?!
Paid for with tax hikes and more borrowing.
Would have contradicted the main campaign promises, slightly...
Lib Dems have won all three seats in the London Bridge & West Bermondsey By election so that means Southwark ends up LAB 49 LD 14.
I also think that makes the Lib Dems the biggest gainers of the 2018 local elections, leapfrogging Labour with that final gain.
It bodes well for the lib dems in the late 2020s and 2030s that they are making those gains now. The lib dems desperately need to build up their local resources so that the can be deployed tactically in elections.
Given that it looks like the government are set to give the NHS a huge funding boost, ~£350m per week extra, can anyone explain to me why this wasn't the main campaign promise?!
Paid for with tax hikes and more borrowing.
Would have contradicted the main campaign promises, slightly...
So what? People love more money for the NHS, if we're going to deliver it, may as well campaign on it and get the votes.
We could have added Labour to the list of people/groups of "outwitted by a bus". Unfortunately Theresa clearly doesn't have it.
So as I understand it from R4 this morning on Galileo, the UK is like a member of a club, who contributed to a new library when a member, and then after he resigned, still wants to be able to take books away rather than just come in to use the library?
3.5 - plenty of people who didn't fund the library can be members of a library, so it might be they are arguing they are off the library funding committee but could still ask to be a member
As can the UK in terms of access to Galileo. I think the library analogy is a good one because -this is the key thing - the rules for full membership and external access were setup at the time of founding. The UK helped draft those rules. The rest of the committee don't see a reason to change them as a special case for an ex member. Which is pretty much an analogy for the whole of Brexit.
The difference is that in this case the ex member has a small specialst library (one of the best in the world in its field).
The members of the big library want full access to it, but won’t let the owner of the small library borrow books from them because they think he’ll steal them
I think that's overstating. The UK is good, but not uniquely good.
Comparable to the other 5 eyes (except the US). Better than the EU
Given that it looks like the government are set to give the NHS a huge funding boost, ~£350m per week extra, can anyone explain to me why this wasn't the main campaign promise?!
Stick it on the side of a bus and watch the votes stack up.
Is there anyone at CCHQ with even the slightest bit of political sense left?
It was the nearly as stupid as the dementia tax. They could have easily promised say £200-250 million a week extra (in the small print, by 2022), and then been able to say hey the bus promised wasn't total BS....and also would have allowed Boris to come out of hiding and do what he actually does well, engaging with a certain section of the electorate.
So as I understand it from R4 this morning on Galileo, the UK is like a member of a club, who contributed to a new library when a member, and then after he resigned, still wants to be able to take books away rather than just come in to use the library?
3.5 - plenty of people who didn't fund the library can be members of a library, so it might be they are arguing they are off the library funding committee but could still ask to be a member
As can the UK in terms of access to Galileo. I think the library analogy is a good one because -this is the key thing - the rules for full membership and external access were setup at the time of founding. The UK helped draft those rules. The rest of the committee don't see a reason to change them as a special case for an ex member. Which is pretty much an analogy for the whole of Brexit.
The difference is that in this case the ex member has a small specialst library (one of the best in the world in its field).
The members of the big library want full access to it, but won’t let the owner of the small library borrow books from them because they think he’ll steal them
Do you ever wonder whether these tales of derring-do ang British glory might be a little over-egged? Is it just possible that in some fields we might not be as pre-eminent as The Sun might have us believe?
We have a well developed intellectual fence gathering network, particularly GCHQ. Our location helps as well.
There are lots of other fields where we are also rans
Lib Dems have won all three seats in the London Bridge & West Bermondsey By election so that means Southwark ends up LAB 49 LD 14.
Another centre left pro Remain protest vote?
Are you ever going to run out of sour grapes ? Your guy did okay in Lewisham East - he seemed well known around Grove Park (not surprisingly) but less so. I thought the Greens might have done better from the local contests.
That was not really sour grapes just an objective statement that in 2 by elections this week in Labour Remain areas there has been a protest vote shift from Labour to the LDs in the week Corbyn abstained rather than supported joining the EEA and the Commons voted to leave the single market and customs union
Given that it looks like the government are set to give the NHS a huge funding boost, ~£350m per week extra, can anyone explain to me why this wasn't the main campaign promise?!
Stick it on the side of a bus and watch the votes stack up.
Is there anyone at CCHQ with even the slightest bit of political sense left?
It would be significantly popular with that (sizeable) chunk of Remainers who actively dislike the Eurocracy but were unconvinced of the benefits of leaving the EU.
And it would be a five finger death punch to those smug gits who just LOVED posting that picture of that bus. I guess we won't be seeing it from them so often now....
It's another symptom of the more general high-street malaise as many people switch to online. As for shopping, so for banking - much reduced footfall in most branches, it becomes harder and harder to justify keeping them open.
You have to be careful on understanding how the figure is worked out too. I know of a branch closure where the bank is now situated in the adjacent Asda. Normally when they do these stories that would count as a closure. I work in the pub industry and know that Camra's figures about pub closures are nonsense as they count a pub closure in their figures even if it reopens shortly after and things like TUPE apply to staff. I think they even include pubs that stop operating as they are being refurbished.
That said I do all my banking online and only go to a bank to pay in a cheque, and they have machines to do that now.
Most surprising part of all that is that you still use cheques.
I only pay them in when I receive them! They do come in handy for payments for a few things my kids do at school, where no online option
They should have been abolished years ago, forcing the likes of schools to digitise.
Certain industries are built on cheque transactions - including mine.
If there is market demand, and there in, why do you think they should be abolished?
Banks find it very expensive. But people refuse to pay for their banking.
Given that it looks like the government are set to give the NHS a huge funding boost, ~£350m per week extra, can anyone explain to me why this wasn't the main campaign promise?!
Stick it on the side of a bus and watch the votes stack up.
Is there anyone at CCHQ with even the slightest bit of political sense left?
I think the tories were still trying to clad themselves in their well worn jester's motley of fiscal prudence. None of that matters now.
Lib Dems have won all three seats in the London Bridge & West Bermondsey By election so that means Southwark ends up LAB 49 LD 14.
I also think that makes the Lib Dems the biggest gainers of the 2018 local elections, leapfrogging Labour with that final gain.
It bodes well for the lib dems in the late 2020s and 2030s that they are making those gains now. The lib dems desperately need to build up their local resources so that the can be deployed tactically in elections.
London Bridge & West Bermondsey (Southwark) result:
How many times does the Chief Executive of Ascot have to remind me that there will be a no drugs policy at the Royal Meeting next week? That's the second email in a week.
Given that it looks like the government are set to give the NHS a huge funding boost, ~£350m per week extra, can anyone explain to me why this wasn't the main campaign promise?!
Stick it on the side of a bus and watch the votes stack up.
Is there anyone at CCHQ with even the slightest bit of political sense left?
I think the tories were still trying to clad themselves in their well worn jester's motley of fiscal prudence. None of that matters now.
Indeed, but I think it hasn't mattered since June 2015, most people thought then that we were done with austerity. The party failed to see this after the election and has been living in the post 2009 crash for too long.
Lib Dems have won all three seats in the London Bridge & West Bermondsey By election so that means Southwark ends up LAB 49 LD 14.
Another centre left pro Remain protest vote?
Are you ever going to run out of sour grapes ? Your guy did okay in Lewisham East - he seemed well known around Grove Park (not surprisingly) but less so. I thought the Greens might have done better from the local contests.
That was not really sour grapes just an objective statement that in 2 by elections this week in Labour Remain areas there has been a protest vote shift from Labour to the LDs in the week Corbyn abstained rather than supported joining the EEA and the Commons voted to leave the single market and customs union
It's hardly much of a protest when 67 per cent of voters can't even be bothered,
The Lib Dems always do well on low turnout elections - when 70 per cent of voters plus turn out in EU referendums and general elections they tend to do less well. And Lewisham still has 2 Labour MPs, a Labour Mayor and a one party state Labour council with no opposition.
How many times does the Chief Executive of Ascot have to remind me that there will be a no drugs policy at the Royal Meeting next week? That's the second email in a week.
What a grim view of the clientele.
I hope the message gets through to the raft of high-class hookers that populate the event....
How many times does the Chief Executive of Ascot have to remind me that there will be a no drugs policy at the Royal Meeting next week? That's the second email in a week.
What a grim view of the clientele.
You know its really gone downhill when they start telling you about the free drugs testing lab available for all customers.
How many times does the Chief Executive of Ascot have to remind me that there will be a no drugs policy at the Royal Meeting next week? That's the second email in a week.
What a grim view of the clientele.
You know its really gone downhill when they start telling you about the free drugs testing lab available for all customers.
How many times does the Chief Executive of Ascot have to remind me that there will be a no drugs policy at the Royal Meeting next week? That's the second email in a week.
What a grim view of the clientele.
You know its really gone downhill when they start telling you about the free drugs testing lab available for all customers.
Lib Dems have won all three seats in the London Bridge & West Bermondsey By election so that means Southwark ends up LAB 49 LD 14.
I also think that makes the Lib Dems the biggest gainers of the 2018 local elections, leapfrogging Labour with that final gain.
It bodes well for the lib dems in the late 2020s and 2030s that they are making those gains now. The lib dems desperately need to build up their local resources so that the can be deployed tactically in elections.
London Bridge & West Bermondsey (Southwark) result:
LDEM: 44.4% LAB: 41.1% CON: 7.3% GRN: 7.1%
Liberal Democrat WIN (X3)
New ward.
Shares calculated w/ top vote method)
Don't they always win there anyway - it's uber wealthy Southwark by the Thames and Tower Bridge in Hughes's old seat. Remain central one might say. EVen in their nadir of 2014 in London they held their seats in north Southwark.
Theresa has played a blinder with her splurge on the NHS. She's clearly been swotting up on the Blair/Brown playbook - make the public so dependent on public spending that they'll feel queasy about voting for any other party that might imperil it. Amazing. Theresa is now the leader of Toynbee-ite economics while Labour are starting to look craggy and mean.
That was not really sour grapes just an objective statement that in 2 by elections this week in Labour Remain areas there has been a protest vote shift from Labour to the LDs in the week Corbyn abstained rather than supported joining the EEA and the Commons voted to leave the single market and customs union
If you choose to see every political development through the prism of A50 that's fine but that's not the only motivation out there.
As for Labour's position they are no more or less deeply divided than your Party but, fair play to the Conservatives, you have consistently outmanoeuvred Labour since 2016.
The Conservatives could and indeed would have had it both ways in the Referendum - had REMAIN won the Party would have rallied round the victorious Cameron and Osborne but LEAVE winning made little difference because the Conservatives then became the agents of the will of the people and committed to leading Britain out of the EU.
Labour were left either supporting REMAIN in which case they were acting against the will of the people or supporting LEAVE in which case the argument is they should stop opposing and let the Government deliver on its commitment to honour the referendum.
The proof of the pudding will be in whatever thin gruel is served up by May and Davis later in the year or early next. The can will have reached the end of the road and the terms of our future economic and political relationship with the EU will be out there. The choice for Conservative (and Labour) MPs will be either to support the Party line or go with the heart and gut.
We are constantly told the south is complacent about the SNP, and to be fair writing them off would be a tremendous mistake, but it's funny how it isn't deemed to be complacency when the SNP once again act as though their grievances are universal and victory inevitable.
They might win yet. I would urge any union supporters not to take the union for granted. But the idea the complacency only ever goes one way is not supportable I think.
Chris Deerin is/was a supporter of the Union, so you should probably take it up with him.
We are constantly told the south is complacent about the SNP, and to be fair writing them off would be a tremendous mistake, but it's funny how it isn't deemed to be complacency when the SNP once again act as though their grievances are universal and victory inevitable.
They might win yet. I would urge any union supporters not to take the union for granted. But the idea the complacency only ever goes one way is not supportable I think.
And the SNP aren't complacent about the idea that, as an independent nation, they'll be allowed to continue using the pound? Dream on....
Ah Yoons, living in the 'please can we have a currency union' past. Catch yerself on, no one's expecting the UK to do us any favours. No point when you're in full nose cutting off to spite face mode.
Theresa has played a blinder with her splurge on the NHS. She's clearly been swotting up on the Blair/Brown playbook - make the public so dependent on public spending that they'll feel queasy about voting for any other party that might imperil it. Amazing. Theresa is now the leader of Toynbee-ite economics while Labour are starting to look craggy and mean.
If it's what was reported on PB yesterday, it's hardly a splurge.
Andrew Lansley, i.e. the former SoS in the DoH, said many months ago that it needed a one-off extra of £30 bn per year to catch up with other EU countries ... or Canada. Plus an annual real increase.
Unlike the UK, I was told Canada has an NHS IT system that works quite well nationwide. Hurray; so it's possible. Maybe they could help us to create one.
Luciana Berger This week, @UKLabour announced that Gordon Nardell QC got the job. That he is now the internal arbiter of @uklabour antisemitism cases means I have no faith in the objectivity of the process.
Theresa has played a blinder with her splurge on the NHS. She's clearly been swotting up on the Blair/Brown playbook - make the public so dependent on public spending that they'll feel queasy about voting for any other party that might imperil it. Amazing. Theresa is now the leader of Toynbee-ite economics while Labour are starting to look craggy and mean.
May has never been a laissez faire Thatcherite. She's an interventionist statist Conservative in the Heseltine mould who seems to think there's no problem either extra money or extra legislation or ideally both can't solve.
Indeed, there's not a whole lot of difference as you say between May and Blair/Brown - between 2010-15 Conservatives complained there was a Liberal Democrat Government and now they can complain they have a Social Democrat Government.
Luciana Berger This week, @UKLabour announced that Gordon Nardell QC got the job. That he is now the internal arbiter of @uklabour antisemitism cases means I have no faith in the objectivity of the process.
The NEC should urgently review his appointment.
Trouble at mill...
It is as if Team Jezza don't take this antisemitism thing seriously.
Lib Dems have won all three seats in the London Bridge & West Bermondsey By election so that means Southwark ends up LAB 49 LD 14.
I also think that makes the Lib Dems the biggest gainers of the 2018 local elections, leapfrogging Labour with that final gain.
It bodes well for the lib dems in the late 2020s and 2030s that they are making those gains now. The lib dems desperately need to build up their local resources so that the can be deployed tactically in elections.
London Bridge & West Bermondsey (Southwark) result:
LDEM: 44.4% LAB: 41.1% CON: 7.3% GRN: 7.1%
Liberal Democrat WIN (X3)
New ward.
Shares calculated w/ top vote method)
Don't they always win there anyway - it's uber wealthy Southwark by the Thames and Tower Bridge in Hughes's old seat. Remain central one might say. EVen in their nadir of 2014 in London they held their seats in north Southwark.
" And Lewisham still has 2 Labour MPs, a Labour Mayor and a one party state Labour council with no opposition."
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
Mr. Divvie, those with a political interest in stoking division between Scotland and the rest of the UK certainly seem to believe Brussels is lovelier than London. Can't imagine why...
better chips and beer for starters MD
Definitely not better beer. The London microbreweries are running rings around the rest of the country (and the larger European beer brands as well). 10 years ago you were probably correct, today London is way, way beyond the rest of the UK wrt to beer quality.
What a load of shite. Quality ale is brewed all over the country. Excellent beers in Yorkshire.
And I'd rather have a pint of cask from a mid-size or large brewery than an overpriced can of 'American Style IPA' from a self-styled 'Craft' brewery.
Agreed.
A pint of Adnams (anything, pretty much, but especially Ghost Ship) knocks the fizzy stuff out of the park.
Theresa has played a blinder with her splurge on the NHS. She's clearly been swotting up on the Blair/Brown playbook - make the public so dependent on public spending that they'll feel queasy about voting for any other party that might imperil it. Amazing. Theresa is now the leader of Toynbee-ite economics while Labour are starting to look craggy and mean.
May has never been a laissez faire Thatcherite. She's an interventionist statist Conservative in the Heseltine mould who seems to think there's no problem either extra money or extra legislation or ideally both can't solve.
Indeed, there's not a whole lot of difference as you say between May and Blair/Brown - between 2010-15 Conservatives complained there was a Liberal Democrat Government and now they can complain they have a Social Democrat Government.
Thatcher seems to have managed to set the political dial one party to the right even after being dead for 5 years.
So:
Mid 20th.C Tory is now 'Lib.Dem', as in the attacks on Soubry or Grieve Left-wing Labour is 'IRA-supporting Commie' Right-wing Labour (Roy Hattersley) is 'Labour left' SDP is 'Labour'. The economic utterings of the Mad Monk and Enoch Powell are 'Tory'. Greater nutters are 'the Tory hard right'.
It's another symptom of the more general high-street malaise as many people switch to online. As for shopping, so for banking - much reduced footfall in most branches, it becomes harder and harder to justify keeping them open.
You have to be careful on understanding how the figure is worked out too. I know of a branch closure where the bank is now situated in the adjacent Asda. Normally when they do these stories that would count as a closure. I work in the pub industry and know that Camra's figures about pub closures are nonsense as they count a pub closure in their figures even if it reopens shortly after and things like TUPE apply to staff. I think they even include pubs that stop operating as they are being refurbished.
That said I do all my banking online and only go to a bank to pay in a cheque, and they have machines to do that now.
Most surprising part of all that is that you still use cheques.
I only pay them in when I receive them! They do come in handy for payments for a few things my kids do at school, where no online option
They should have been abolished years ago, forcing the likes of schools to digitise.
Certain industries are built on cheque transactions - including mine.
If there is market demand, and there in, why do you think they should be abolished?
Supply creates its own demand.
They are time-consuming and expensive to administer, and prone to fraud.
I see sky news have lost another high profile long time presenter. They seem to be in competition with the telegraph to see who can lose all their decent journos.
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
Yes, but if there was a referendum to bring back capital punishment, and the executors won. Then 'will of the people' is exactly what would be said if MPs tried to back out of it.
You cannot hand over a decision like this to a referendum and then try and weasel out of it.
Theresa has played a blinder with her splurge on the NHS. She's clearly been swotting up on the Blair/Brown playbook - make the public so dependent on public spending that they'll feel queasy about voting for any other party that might imperil it. Amazing. Theresa is now the leader of Toynbee-ite economics while Labour are starting to look craggy and mean.
No, it would have been a blinder if she'd played it 13 months ago....
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
Yes, but if there was a referendum to bring back capital punishment, and the executors won. Then 'will of the people' is exactly what would be said if MPs tried to back out of it.
You cannot hand over a decision like this to a referendum and then try and weasel out of it.
Well, you can, but it won't end well.
One of the problems we have is that the referendum question posed was ill-defined. Everything from no deal under WTO rules to Norway++ would fit the referendum question to leave the EU.
Of course it would have been hard to have a more specific question because, WTO rules aside, all of the other options rely upon reaching an agreement with the EU.
So the use of "will of the people" to argue for one type of Brexit over another is really toxic.
I see sky news have lost another high profile long time presenter. They seem to be in competition with the telegraph to see who can lose all their decent journos.
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
Yes, but if there was a referendum to bring back capital punishment, and the executors won. Then 'will of the people' is exactly what would be said if MPs tried to back out of it.
You cannot hand over a decision like this to a referendum and then try and weasel out of it.
Well, you can, but it won't end well.
Quite. That’s why I want Members to do their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and vote accordingly. Etc,
The capital punishment topic is an example I'd considered recently. I've always been against it, but if we had a referendum on it and we lost, I'd accept the result. I wouldn't like it and I'd still argue against it, but democracy is a bugger sometimes.
To try and subvert it would make me a hypocrite should I ever call myself a democrat, which I do.
I see sky news have lost another high profile long time presenter. They seem to be in competition with the telegraph to see who can lose all their decent journos.
Who's leaving?
Darren mcaffrey is going to euronews.....he has been with them for I think ~10 years.
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
This is logically ludicrous. If you don't trust the people enough to make the decision for themselves then why do you trust them to pick the right people to make the decision for them? If public opinion is that flawed then it undermines the whole concept of representative democracy.
We elect MPs to represent us because until recently the basic practicalities of asking the electorate about every issue were prohibitive. Whether or not that is still the case is debatable but certainly issues where we are going to change how we are governed we should be asking the people directly and not simply leaving it to the MPs who have proved time and time again that they put self interest and party needs ahead of the wishes of their constituents.
It's another symptom of the more general high-street malaise as many people switch to online. As for shopping, so for banking - much reduced footfall in most branches, it becomes harder and harder to justify keeping them open.
You have to be careful on understanding how the figure is worked out too. I know of a branch closure where the bank is now situated in the adjacent Asda. Normally when they do these stories that would count as a closure. I work in the pub industry and know that Camra's figures about pub closures are nonsense as they count a pub closure in their figures even if it reopens shortly after and things like TUPE apply to staff. I think they even include pubs that stop operating as they are being refurbished.
That said I do all my banking online and only go to a bank to pay in a cheque, and they have machines to do that now.
Most surprising part of all that is that you still use cheques.
I only pay them in when I receive them! They do come in handy for payments for a few things my kids do at school, where no online option
They should have been abolished years ago, forcing the likes of schools to digitise.
Certain industries are built on cheque transactions - including mine.
If there is market demand, and there in, why do you think they should be abolished?
Supply creates its own demand.
They are time-consuming and expensive to administer, and prone to fraud.
The capital punishment topic is an example I'd considered recently. I've always been against it, but if we had a referendum on it and we lost, I'd accept the result. I wouldn't like it and I'd still argue against it, but democracy is a bugger sometimes.
To try and subvert it would make me a hypocrite should I ever call myself a democrat, which I do.
It's a bit dated but a 2003 survey found that 94% of people in the West Midlands supported the re-introduction of capital punishment, compared to 34% in London.
"More than half of Tory activists support death penalty, finds landmark survey of grassroots members Academics found stark differences of opinion on Brexit, economic and social issues between Tory members and their Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrat counterparts"
I see sky news have lost another high profile long time presenter. They seem to be in competition with the telegraph to see who can lose all their decent journos.
Who's leaving?
Darren mcaffrey is going to euronews.....he has been with them for I think ~10 years.
Ironic that the very, very pro-Remain SKY News has so many leavers.....
I see sky news have lost another high profile long time presenter. They seem to be in competition with the telegraph to see who can lose all their decent journos.
Who's leaving?
Darren mcaffrey is going to euronews.....he has been with them for I think ~10 years.
Given that it looks like the government are set to give the NHS a huge funding boost, ~£350m per week extra, can anyone explain to me why this wasn't the main campaign promise?!
Paid for with tax hikes and more borrowing.
Would have contradicted the main campaign promises, slightly...
NHS is bloated and sends it time keeping people alive to say how downtrodden people are. T May is a socialist. Stop wasting money on people who then drop dead .
I see sky news have lost another high profile long time presenter. They seem to be in competition with the telegraph to see who can lose all their decent journos.
Who's leaving?
Darren mcaffrey is going to euronews.....he has been with them for I think ~10 years.
Ironic that the very, very pro-Remain SKY News has so many leavers.....
Lib Dems have won all three seats in the London Bridge & West Bermondsey By election so that means Southwark ends up LAB 49 LD 14.
I also think that makes the Lib Dems the biggest gainers of the 2018 local elections, leapfrogging Labour with that final gain.
Not really gains because this is a new ward.
I think notional calculations are done to try to work out who would have won the ward last time. Otherwise the BBC, Sky, etc, wouldn't be able to issue net gains and losses data.
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
This is logically ludicrous. If you don't trust the people enough to make the decision for themselves then why do you trust them to pick the right people to make the decision for them? If public opinion is that flawed then it undermines the whole concept of representative democracy.
We elect MPs to represent us because until recently the basic practicalities of asking the electorate about every issue were prohibitive. Whether or not that is still the case is debatable but certainly issues where we are going to change how we are governed we should be asking the people directly and not simply leaving it to the MPs who have proved time and time again that they put self interest and party needs ahead of the wishes of their constituents.
If we are going to have more referendums then we have to prevent politicians from choosing the questions asked, because this question was asked only for reasons of self-interest and party advantage. And because it was not a specific enough question the mandate from the referendum can be used to justify almost anything.
That was not really sour grapes just an objective statement that in 2 by elections this week in Labour Remain areas there has been a protest vote shift from Labour to the LDs in the week Corbyn abstained rather than supported joining the EEA and the Commons voted to leave the single market and customs union
If you choose to see every political development through the prism of A50 that's fine but that's not the only motivation out there.
As for Labour's position they are no more or less deeply divided than your Party but, fair play to the Conservatives, you have consistently outmanoeuvred Labour since 2016.
The Conservatives could and indeed would have had it both ways in the Referendum - had REMAIN won the Party would have rallied round the victorious Cameron and Osborne but LEAVE winning made little difference because the Conservatives then became the agents of the will of the people and committed to leading Britain out of the EU.
Labour were left either supporting REMAIN in which case they were acting against the will of the people or supporting LEAVE in which case the argument is they should stop opposing and let the Government deliver on its commitment to honour the referendum.
The proof of the pudding will be in whatever thin gruel is served up by May and Davis later in the year or early next. The can will have reached the end of the road and the terms of our future economic and political relationship with the EU will be out there. The choice for Conservative (and Labour) MPs will be either to support the Party line or go with the heart and gut.
That is a real problem for the Labour and Tory MPs, Mr Stodge. Some of them have no heart. Other have no guts. Many have neither. So I expect most of them will tamely follow their leaders - and who are beneficiaries of that?
That was not really sour grapes just an objective statement that in 2 by elections this week in Labour Remain areas there has been a protest vote shift from Labour to the LDs in the week Corbyn abstained rather than supported joining the EEA and the Commons voted to leave the single market and customs union
If you choose to see every political development through the prism of A50 that's fine but that's not the only motivation out there.
As for Labour's position they are no more or less deeply divided than your Party but, fair play to the Conservatives, you have consistently outmanoeuvred Labour since 2016.
The Conservatives could and indeed would have had it both ways in the Referendum - had REMAIN won the Party would have rallied round the victorious Cameron and Osborne but LEAVE winning made little difference because the Conservatives then became the agents of the will of the people and committed to leading Britain out of the EU.
Labour were left either supporting REMAIN in which case they were acting against the will of the people or supporting LEAVE in which case the argument is they should stop opposing and let the Government deliver on its commitment to honour the referendum.
The proof of the pudding will be in whatever thin gruel is served up by May and Davis later in the year or early next. The can will have reached the end of the road and the terms of our future economic and political relationship with the EU will be out there. The choice for Conservative (and Labour) MPs will be either to support the Party line or go with the heart and gut.
That is a real problem for the Labour and Tory MPs, Mr Stodge. Some of them have no heart. Other have no guts. Many have neither. So I expect most of them will tamely follow their leaders - and who are beneficiaries of that?
On the other hand, without a bit of disipline, then the whole place falls apart, and no one can do anything.
If both the Tories and Labour can't control their backbenchers, then we have a serious issue.
I'm late to the party but isn't this the by-election result with nothing for everyone? Labour see their vote share down sharply and obviously have no special hold over metropolitan Remainers. The Lib Dems came a very distant second on a low turnout - hardly a platform for future success. And the Conservatives went backwards, suggesting that their message to the capital continues to be returned with a raspberry.
All three should be doing some soul-searching today.
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
This is logically ludicrous. If you don't trust the people enough to make the decision for themselves then why do you trust them to pick the right people to make the decision for them? If public opinion is that flawed then it undermines the whole concept of representative democracy.
We elect MPs to represent us because until recently the basic practicalities of asking the electorate about every issue were prohibitive. Whether or not that is still the case is debatable but certainly issues where we are going to change how we are governed we should be asking the people directly and not simply leaving it to the MPs who have proved time and time again that they put self interest and party needs ahead of the wishes of their constituents.
If we are going to have more referendums then we have to prevent politicians from choosing the questions asked, because this question was asked only for reasons of self-interest and party advantage. And because it was not a specific enough question the mandate from the referendum can be used to justify almost anything.
I think they are justified on any case where the question is how we are governed. So anything to do with voting reform, Lords reform or of course the EU should be decided by referendum. Personally I would like to see it eventually go further but for now constitutional questions should certainly be decided by referendum.
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
This is logically ludicrous. If you don't trust the people enough to make the decision for themselves then why do you trust them to pick the right people to make the decision for them? If public opinion is that flawed then it undermines the whole concept of representative democracy.
We elect MPs to represent us because until recently the basic practicalities of asking the electorate about every issue were prohibitive. Whether or not that is still the case is debatable but certainly issues where we are going to change how we are governed we should be asking the people directly and not simply leaving it to the MPs who have proved time and time again that they put self interest and party needs ahead of the wishes of their constituents.
If we are going to have more referendums then we have to prevent politicians from choosing the questions asked, because this question was asked only for reasons of self-interest and party advantage. And because it was not a specific enough question the mandate from the referendum can be used to justify almost anything.
Agreed. Also many subjects that could be put to s referendum are so complex that the amount of time a member of the electorate would need to put into the decision in order to make an informed choice would be prohibitive. That's why we have representatives.
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
This is logically ludicrous. If you don't trust the people enough to make the decision for themselves then why do you trust them to pick the right people to make the decision for them? If public opinion is that flawed then it undermines the whole concept of representative democracy.
We elect MPs to represent us because until recently the basic practicalities of asking the electorate about every issue were prohibitive. Whether or not that is still the case is debatable but certainly issues where we are going to change how we are governed we should be asking the people directly and not simply leaving it to the MPs who have proved time and time again that they put self interest and party needs ahead of the wishes of their constituents.
If we are going to have more referendums then we have to prevent politicians from choosing the questions asked, because this question was asked only for reasons of self-interest and party advantage. And because it was not a specific enough question the mandate from the referendum can be used to justify almost anything.
"Referendums are the devices of dictators and demagogues". - a saying attributed to both Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher.
Or you might prefer James Madison's dictum that "direct democracy is the tyranny of the majority".
That was not really sour grapes just an objective statement that in 2 by elections this week in Labour Remain areas there has been a protest vote shift from Labour to the LDs in the week Corbyn abstained rather than supported joining the EEA and the Commons voted to leave the single market and customs union
If you choose to see every political development through the prism of A50 that's fine but that's not the only motivation out there. As for Labour's position they are no more or less deeply divided than your Party but, fair play to the Conservatives, you have consistently outmanoeuvred Labour since 2016. The Conservatives could and indeed would have had it both ways in the Referendum - had REMAIN won the Party would have rallied round the victorious Cameron and Osborne but LEAVE winning made little difference because the Conservatives then became the agents of the will of the people and committed to leading Britain out of the EU.
Labour were left either supporting REMAIN in which case they were acting against the will of the people or supporting LEAVE in which case the argument is they should stop opposing and let the Government deliver on its commitment to honour the referendum.
The proof of the pudding will be in whatever thin gruel is served up by May and Davis later in the year or early next. The can will have reached the end of the road and the terms of our future economic and political relationship with the EU will be out there. The choice for Conservative (and Labour) MPs will be either to support the Party line or go with the heart and gut.
That is a real problem for the Labour and Tory MPs, Mr Stodge. Some of them have no heart. Other have no guts. Many have neither. So I expect most of them will tamely follow their leaders - and who are beneficiaries of that?
On the other hand, without a bit of disipline, then the whole place falls apart, and no one can do anything.
If both the Tories and Labour can't control their backbenchers, then we have a serious issue.
Both the Conservatives and Labour are unholy coalitions which hang together only as a matter of self-interest,
The sooner we get a proper voting system where people can discriminate among the different shades of Tory and of Labour, the sooner our democracy might start working again.
Meanwhile, both Labour and the Conservatives are uncontrollable.
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
This is logically ludicrous. If you don't trust the people enough to make the decision for themselves then why do you trust them to pick the right people to make the decision for them? If public opinion is that flawed then it undermines the whole concept of representative democracy.
We elect MPs to represent us because until recently the basic practicalities of asking the electorate about every issue were prohibitive. Whether or not that is still the case is debatable but certainly issues where we are going to change how we are governed we should be asking the people directly and not simply leaving it to the MPs who have proved time and time again that they put self interest and party needs ahead of the wishes of their constituents.
If we are going to have more referendums then we have to prevent politicians from choosing the questions asked, because this question was asked only for reasons of self-interest and party advantage. And because it was not a specific enough question the mandate from the referendum can be used to justify almost anything.
"Referendums are the devices of dictators and demagogues". - a saying attributed to both Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher.
Or you might prefer James Madison's dictum that "direct democracy is the tyranny of the majority".
The Brexit referendum is both of these and more.
On the other hand, when you have two 'establishment' parties which control the government between them, then if they don't address voters concerns it builds up more and more political tension in the populace..
Eurosceptism has been bubbling under for decades, and it's the failure of both parties to not deal with it which led to the rise of UKIP and then to Brexit. If either party had dealt with it differently, and dealt with it earlier, we would not be where we are now.
It's another symptom of the more general high-street malaise as many people switch to online. As for shopping, so for banking - much reduced footfall in most branches, it becomes harder and harder to justify keeping them open.
You have to be careful on understanding how the figure is worked out too. I know of a branch closure where the bank is now situated in the adjacent Asda. Normally when they do these stories that would count as a closure. I work in the pub industry and know that Camra's figures about pub closures are nonsense as they count a pub closure in their figures even if it reopens shortly after and things like TUPE apply to staff. I think they even include pubs that stop operating as they are being refurbished.
That said I do all my banking online and only go to a bank to pay in a cheque, and they have machines to do that now.
Most surprising part of all that is that you still use cheques.
I only pay them in when I receive them! They do come in handy for payments for a few things my kids do at school, where no online option
They should have been abolished years ago, forcing the likes of schools to digitise.
Certain industries are built on cheque transactions - including mine.
If there is market demand, and there in, why do you think they should be abolished?
Supply creates its own demand.
They are time-consuming and expensive to administer, and prone to fraud.
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
This is logically ludicrous. If you don't trust the people enough to make the decision for themselves then why do you trust them to pick the right people to make the decision for them? If public opinion is that flawed then it undermines the whole concept of representative democracy.
We elect MPs to represent us because until recently the basic practicalities of asking the electorate about every issue were prohibitive. Whether or not that is still the case is debatable but certainly issues where we are going to change how we are governed we should be asking the people directly and not simply leaving it to the MPs who have proved time and time again that they put self interest and party needs ahead of the wishes of their constituents.
If we are going to have more referendums then we have to prevent politicians from choosing the questions asked, because this question was asked only for reasons of self-interest and party advantage. And because it was not a specific enough question the mandate from the referendum can be used to justify almost anything.
"Referendums are the devices of dictators and demagogues". - a saying attributed to both Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher.
Or you might prefer James Madison's dictum that "direct democracy is the tyranny of the majority".
The Brexit referendum is both of these and more.
LOL. I don't see that Switzerland is suffering from tyrants or demagogues. Nor Ireland.
I was out and about early this morning and went up to the nearby Health Centre and passing one of the parks here in East Ham I saw two huge areas set aside for the faithful to say the special morning prayers on Eid-al-Fitr. One was for the men and the other for the women naturally but it was very well organised by the local mosques with food and refreshments.
The men and women were wearing the Islamic equivalent of their "Sunday best" .
On the other hand, when you have two 'establishment' parties which control the government between them, then if they don't address voters concerns it builds up more and more political tension in the populace..
Eurosceptism has been bubbling under for decades, and it's the failure of both parties to not deal with it which led to the rise of UKIP and then to Brexit. If either party had dealt with it differently, and dealt with it earlier, we would not be where we are now.
"Establishment" is another of those catch-all terms which is used to decry the entire political process. Who could be more "establishment" than Boris (Eton and Oxford) Johnson? Or Nigel (stockbroker and MEP) Farage.
In a representative democracy we elect MPs to take decisions based on the best information and advice available to them, which is often better than the information and advice available to us. And if we don't like them we turn them out at the next election. If voters really felt so strongly about leaving the EU then they would have elected a majority of MPs committed to doing that. But they didn't.
On the other hand, when you have two 'establishment' parties which control the government between them, then if they don't address voters concerns it builds up more and more political tension in the populace..
Eurosceptism has been bubbling under for decades, and it's the failure of both parties to not deal with it which led to the rise of UKIP and then to Brexit. If either party had dealt with it differently, and dealt with it earlier, we would not be where we are now.
"Establishment" is another of those catch-all terms which is used to decry the entire political process. Who could be more "establishment" than Boris (Eton and Oxford) Johnson? Or Nigel (stockbroker and MEP) Farage.
In a representative democracy we elect MPs to take decisions based on the best information and advice available to them, which is often better than the information and advice available to us. And if we don't like them we turn them out at the next election. If voters really felt so strongly about leaving the EU then they would have elected a majority of MPs committed to doing that. But they didn't.
They felt strongly enough to elect a party that would give them a vote.
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
This is logically ludicrous. If you don't trust the people enough to make the decision for themselves then why do you trust them to pick the right people to make the decision for them? If public opinion is that flawed then it undermines the whole concept of representative democracy.
We elect MPs to represent us because until recently the basic practicalities of asking the electorate about every issue were prohibitive. Whether or not that is still the case is debatable but certainly issues where we are going to change how we are governed we should be asking the people directly and not simply leaving it to the MPs who have proved time and time again that they put self interest and party needs ahead of the wishes of their constituents.
If we are going to have more referendums then we have to prevent politicians from choosing the questions asked, because this question was asked only for reasons of self-interest and party advantage. And because it was not a specific enough question the mandate from the referendum can be used to justify almost anything.
"Referendums are the devices of dictators and demagogues". - a saying attributed to both Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher.
Or you might prefer James Madison's dictum that "direct democracy is the tyranny of the majority".
The Brexit referendum is both of these and more.
I once heard Chris Patten attribute it to Julian Critchley.
I'm late to the party but isn't this the by-election result with nothing for everyone? Labour see their vote share down sharply and obviously have no special hold over metropolitan Remainers. The Lib Dems came a very distant second on a low turnout - hardly a platform for future success. And the Conservatives went backwards, suggesting that their message to the capital continues to be returned with a raspberry.
All three should be doing some soul-searching today.
Cheer up - 1 in 3 people voting in a foregone conclusion is good for our democracy. I think all three will write it off as an unnecessary distraction - certainly a no win situation for Tories and Labour. Quite good for Lib dems to get their teeth into and practice their campaigning etc ahead of a by election that does matter.
I’m getting a liitle tired of the phrase ‘will of the people”. Not at all because I’ve a problem with democracy but because it’s used to justify anything.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever. What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
This is logically ludicrous. If you don't trust the people enough to make the decision for themselves then why do you trust them to pick the right people to make the decision for them? If public opinion is that flawed then it undermines the whole concept of representative democracy.
We elect MPs to represent us because until recently the basic practicalities of asking the electorate about every issue were prohibitive. Whether or not that is still the case is debatable but certainly issues where we are going to change how we are governed we should be asking the people directly and not simply leaving it to the MPs who have proved time and time again that they put self interest and party needs ahead of the wishes of their constituents.
If we are going to have more referendums then we have to prevent politicians from choosing the questions asked, because this question was asked only for reasons of self-interest and party advantage. And because it was not a specific enough question the mandate from the referendum can be used to justify almost anything.
"Referendums are the devices of dictators and demagogues". - a saying attributed to both Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher.
Or you might prefer James Madison's dictum that "direct democracy is the tyranny of the majority".
The Brexit referendum is both of these and more.
LOL. I don't see that Switzerland is suffering from tyrants or demagogues. Nor Ireland.
Maybe not. But recent history is littered with examples of referendums being used to legitimise decisions that would not have been taken by representative democracies and which proved ultimately disastrous.
Perhaps someone could remind us why the German constitution forbids the use of referendums?
You'll get no argument from me on the benefits of a proportional voting system but one or two of the others on here might get a fit of the vapours.
As to whether either main party will schism, probably odds against though it's not inconceivable. At the moment, Corbyn is the glue holding the whole edifice together.
Both the Conservatives and Labour are unholy coalitions which hang together only as a matter of self-interest, The sooner we get a proper voting system where people can discriminate among the different shades of Tory and of Labour, the sooner our democracy might start working again. Meanwhile, both Labour and the Conservatives are uncontrollable.
You'll get no argument from me on the benefits of a proportional voting system but one or two of the others on here might get a fit of the vapours. As to whether either main party will schism, probably odds against though it's not inconceivable. At the moment, Corbyn is the glue holding the whole edifice together.
I wonder if, once they come out of their fit of the vapours, our PB Tory friends could tells us just how long they think the Conservative Party can hold together. At present, they all seem to hate one another, and there seems to be no agreement among them about what they would like the country to look like, or how it relates to the rest of the world. As you say, Mr Stodge, it is only the threat of Corbyn that is holding them together. That, and the way they all despise and detest Mrs May.
Mr. Divvie, those with a political interest in stoking division between Scotland and the rest of the UK certainly seem to believe Brussels is lovelier than London. Can't imagine why...
better chips and beer for starters MD
Definitely not better beer. The London microbreweries are running rings around the rest of the country (and the larger European beer brands as well). 10 years ago you were probably correct, today London is way, way beyond the rest of the UK wrt to beer quality.
There are good microbreweries all over the country. One of the best developments of the past ten years.
Max has never been north of Watford. Doubt he knows real craft beers from Carling.
Comments
Stick it on the side of a bus and watch the votes stack up.
Is there anyone at CCHQ with even the slightest bit of political sense left?
Would have contradicted the main campaign promises, slightly...
We could have added Labour to the list of people/groups of "outwitted by a bus". Unfortunately Theresa clearly doesn't have it.
"Rolf Degen
@DegenRolf
Psychology has deceived itself and the public into believing that there are reliable cues to deception - which there aren't. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/7838 …"
twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1007518332986249217
There are lots of other fields where we are also rans
We are going to copy them"
Why vote Tory when you could vote for the real thing?
And it would be a five finger death punch to those smug gits who just LOVED posting that picture of that bus. I guess we won't be seeing it from them so often now....
Rinse, repeat.
LDEM: 44.4%
LAB: 41.1%
CON: 7.3%
GRN: 7.1%
Liberal Democrat WIN (X3)
New ward.
Shares calculated w/ top vote method)
What a grim view of the clientele.
The Lib Dems always do well on low turnout elections - when 70 per cent of voters plus turn out in EU referendums and general elections they tend to do less well. And Lewisham still has 2 Labour MPs, a Labour Mayor and a one party state Labour council with no opposition.
As for Labour's position they are no more or less deeply divided than your Party but, fair play to the Conservatives, you have consistently outmanoeuvred Labour since 2016.
The Conservatives could and indeed would have had it both ways in the Referendum - had REMAIN won the Party would have rallied round the victorious Cameron and Osborne but LEAVE winning made little difference because the Conservatives then became the agents of the will of the people and committed to leading Britain out of the EU.
Labour were left either supporting REMAIN in which case they were acting against the will of the people or supporting LEAVE in which case the argument is they should stop opposing and let the Government deliver on its commitment to honour the referendum.
The proof of the pudding will be in whatever thin gruel is served up by May and Davis later in the year or early next. The can will have reached the end of the road and the terms of our future economic and political relationship with the EU will be out there. The choice for Conservative (and Labour) MPs will be either to support the Party line or go with the heart and gut.
Andrew Lansley, i.e. the former SoS in the DoH, said many months ago that it needed a one-off extra of £30 bn per year to catch up with other EU countries ... or Canada. Plus an annual real increase.
Unlike the UK, I was told Canada has an NHS IT system that works quite well nationwide. Hurray; so it's possible. Maybe they could help us to create one.
Luciana Berger
This week, @UKLabour announced that Gordon Nardell QC got the job. That he is now the internal arbiter of @uklabour antisemitism cases means I have no faith in the objectivity of the process.
The NEC should urgently review his appointment.
Trouble at mill...
Indeed, there's not a whole lot of difference as you say between May and Blair/Brown - between 2010-15 Conservatives complained there was a Liberal Democrat Government and now they can complain they have a Social Democrat Government.
Make your mind up.
What would happen, for example, if we'd had a referendum on capital punishment. Even if the John Christie/Timothy Evans fiasco was headlined in the discussions I suspect there’d be a majority for bringing it back and we’d be in interminable discussions about whether it should apply to all muderers, or all terrorists or whatever.
What happened of course was that Parliament had a full debate and a free vote unencumbered by any need to consider party advantage and capital punishment was abolished.
In other words Members did their duty as representatives in possession of the facts and voted accordingly, not as delegates mandated by party committees or by their electorates.
So:
Mid 20th.C Tory is now 'Lib.Dem', as in the attacks on Soubry or Grieve
Left-wing Labour is 'IRA-supporting Commie'
Right-wing Labour (Roy Hattersley) is 'Labour left'
SDP is 'Labour'.
The economic utterings of the Mad Monk and Enoch Powell are 'Tory'.
Greater nutters are 'the Tory hard right'.
They are time-consuming and expensive to administer, and prone to fraud.
Get rid.
Yes, but if there was a referendum to bring back capital punishment, and the executors won. Then 'will of the people' is exactly what would be said if MPs tried to back out of it.
You cannot hand over a decision like this to a referendum and then try and weasel out of it.
Well, you can, but it won't end well.
Of course it would have been hard to have a more specific question because, WTO rules aside, all of the other options rely upon reaching an agreement with the EU.
So the use of "will of the people" to argue for one type of Brexit over another is really toxic.
The capital punishment topic is an example I'd considered recently. I've always been against it, but if we had a referendum on it and we lost, I'd accept the result. I wouldn't like it and I'd still argue against it, but democracy is a bugger sometimes.
To try and subvert it would make me a hypocrite should I ever call myself a democrat, which I do.
We elect MPs to represent us because until recently the basic practicalities of asking the electorate about every issue were prohibitive. Whether or not that is still the case is debatable but certainly issues where we are going to change how we are governed we should be asking the people directly and not simply leaving it to the MPs who have proved time and time again that they put self interest and party needs ahead of the wishes of their constituents.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/apr/27/ukcrime13
This is more recent, from Jan 2018:
"More than half of Tory activists support death penalty, finds landmark survey of grassroots members
Academics found stark differences of opinion on Brexit, economic and social issues between Tory members and their Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrat counterparts"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservatives-death-penalty-poll-grassroots-members-queen-mary-university-london-a8139946.html
We all drop dead in time.
Tariffs that affect more than 800 products worth $34bn in annual trade are due to come into effect on 6 July.
If both the Tories and Labour can't control their backbenchers, then we have a serious issue.
All three should be doing some soul-searching today.
Think we will see a late flurry.
Also many subjects that could be put to s referendum are so complex that the amount of time a member of the electorate would need to put into the decision in order to make an informed choice would be prohibitive. That's why we have representatives.
Or you might prefer James Madison's dictum that "direct democracy is the tyranny of the majority".
The Brexit referendum is both of these and more.
The sooner we get a proper voting system where people can discriminate among the different shades of Tory and of Labour, the sooner our democracy might start working again.
Meanwhile, both Labour and the Conservatives are uncontrollable.
Eurosceptism has been bubbling under for decades, and it's the failure of both parties to not deal with it which led to the rise of UKIP and then to Brexit. If either party had dealt with it differently, and dealt with it earlier, we would not be where we are now.
Edit: you've gotta feel for Mo, that said.
The men and women were wearing the Islamic equivalent of their "Sunday best" .
In a representative democracy we elect MPs to take decisions based on the best information and advice available to them, which is often better than the information and advice available to us. And if we don't like them we turn them out at the next election. If voters really felt so strongly about leaving the EU then they would have elected a majority of MPs committed to doing that. But they didn't.
Perhaps someone could remind us why the German constitution forbids the use of referendums?
As to whether either main party will schism, probably odds against though it's not inconceivable. At the moment, Corbyn is the glue holding the whole edifice together.