|
|
Post by mercian on May 6, 2023 23:43:19 GMT
Ah you can't really do that. Either you have a monarch and fund it fully, or you get rid. Personally, I would favour the latter (although, as even Jeremy Corbyn agreed, it is not the highest priority issue). However, there is a middle path. The Scandinavian monarchies seem to be run much cheaper. In fact all the European monarchies seem to manage with less pomp and fewer palaces and flunkies. And less tourism, TV rights etc. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on May 6, 2023 23:51:37 GMT
oldnat - the simplest answer would be the one adopted in many (most?) federal systems, where the UK parliament or decision making body is constituted in such a way to prevent such dominance. For example, a system where majority votes must be England + one of the other three, or the US senate, where each state has 2 senators, regardless of population. The US constitution cannot be changed with the support of 75% of the states, for example. In the UK, we all had to leave the EU, despite two of the four voting to remain. Bizarre. This is not a new problem, and many countries have found workable solutions within legally defined structures. Only dictatorships generally want the powers to subvert other nation's wills. You trade one problem for another in such an approach - when the majority is overruled due to the geographical distribution of the minority then it will be deemed absurd and undemocratic all the same. Personally I like the sense of the US system - one chamber based on population, one chamber based on States, and the President elected by a combination of the two methods. The latter two parts of which are routinely castigated as a subversion of democracy when they produce a result that appears to deviate from the overall popular vote. Likewise a constitution that cannot be changed at the whim of the current government or parliament is very appealing... but we can see the flipside of that too in the US - because it is so very hard to amend it in effect never gets updated and ends up being the primary determinant on issues and subjects that were never even conceived of when it was written, which just hands the power back to the politicians of the day. Or there's the French approach of writing a new inviolate constitution every half century or so when the old one becomes inconvenient or unworkable. You mentioned earlier that the untrammelled power accorded to the House of Commons is really unusual - by the same token, how many countries have found the kind of workable federal solutions you mention but where there are only a handful of members and one of those has between 10 and 25 times the population of each of the others? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 6, 2023 23:53:47 GMT
Given the recent legislation to give police extra powers to arrest anyone on sight, I wonder whether the recent change of heart by conservatives to re-hire more police has nothing whatever to do with preventing the sort of crime affecting normal citizens, but to strengthen their capacity to prevent civil disobedience. What they wanted was more forces to fight the public, not defend them. Did others notice how essentially the public is now prevented from personally taking part in events like this by more and more crowd control keeping people away? You obviously missed the massed thousands in The Mall. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 7, 2023 0:01:47 GMT
I haven't seen this mentioned yet: www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/06/this-election-bloodbath-was-bad-enough-for-the-tories-tactical-voting-labour-brexit-general-electionYet growing evidence of an electorate sufficiently angry at Tory incumbents to back whoever stands a chance of defeating them may presage tactical voting on a scale not seen since 1997. Such tactical voting would bring many extra seats into play for both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Though the beneficiaries may vary, a strongly anti-incumbent mood is abroad. That is bad news for the government, and good news for all its opponents.
Robert Ford is professor of political science at Manchester University and co-author of The British General Election of 2019 I wonder if tactical voting is as effective in GEs as in LEs. Local Election voters are more likely to be politically aware (because the turnout is low). In a GE a lot more people vote - around 3 times as many - and I wonder how many of these will be aware of tactical voting opportunities in their constituency. Does anyone have any evidence of tactical voting making a difference in 2019 or any other time? Note - I'm not saying there aren't any examples but I suspect that there aren't many. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 7, 2023 0:11:42 GMT
I will say first, just to get it out of the way, that no UK wide party is likely to offer this any time soon - but from my angle the answer is simple. The UK becomes the UR (united republic), we get rid of the whole "king in parliament" nonsense along with the monarchy and have a written constitution that guarantees the rights and responsibilities of the national parliaments of the members of the UR. Solved. Presumably we'd still need a head of state? Presumably elected. Would you want to risk Boris Johnson for instance winning that race? I think it's far better to have a ceremonial head of state with few real powers except in extremis, and we have the best in the world. Does the coronation of the King of Belgium get beamed all round the world and attract mass tourism? |
|
|
|
Post by eor on May 7, 2023 0:14:24 GMT
Coventry is one of the councils counting tonight, but any interest is likely to be niche even by local election standards. Labour already hold 14 of the 18 seats up tonight, and a huge majority on the overall council. They'll expect to take one of the 4 wards the Tories are defending tonight (Westwood), and might taken a second (Bablake) if they're having a very good night. or the Tories are having a really bad one. Labour are under pressure themselves from the Greens in one ward (Holbrook), and on a low turnout could lose another (Sherbourne) to the Tories due to very local factors - this is the ward where the Tories won the by-election from Labour a few months back, for those who remember that particular oddity in the weekly Thursday night rituals on here. In the event, the Tories held each of their 4 seats and ran Labour extremely close in two others (including Sherbourne, where the Labour council has still not finished the massive disruptive roadworks that are expressly designed to increase traffic levels). Labour also lost the seat in Holbrooks to the Greens. Haven't crunched the overall numbers yet but from this and what others have reported on outcomes it feels like there might be a bit of a west/east divide for Labour's fortunes in the Midlands. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 7, 2023 0:14:27 GMT
oldnat - the simplest answer would be the one adopted in many (most?) federal systems, where the UK parliament or decision making body is constituted in such a way to prevent such dominance. For example, a system where majority votes must be England + one of the other three, or the US senate, where each state has 2 senators, regardless of population. The US constitution cannot be changed with the support of 75% of the states, for example. In the UK, we all had to leave the EU, despite two of the four voting to remain. Bizarre. This is not a new problem, and many countries have found workable solutions within legally defined structures. Only dictatorships generally want the powers to subvert other nation's wills. You trade one problem for another in such an approach - when the majority is overruled due to the geographical distribution of the minority then it will be deemed absurd and undemocratic all the same. Personally I like the sense of the US system - one chamber based on population, one chamber based on States, and the President elected by a combination of the two methods. The latter two parts of which are routinely castigated as a subversion of democracy when they produce a result that appears to deviate from the overall popular vote. Likewise a constitution that cannot be changed at the whim of the current government or parliament is very appealing... but we can see the flipside of that too in the US - because it is so very hard to amend it in effect never gets updated and ends up being the primary determinant on issues and subjects that were never even conceived of when it was written, which just hands the power back to the politicians of the day. Or there's the French approach of writing a new inviolate constitution every half century or so when the old one becomes inconvenient or unworkable. You mentioned earlier that the untrammelled power accorded to the House of Commons is really unusual - by the same token, how many countries have found the kind of workable federal solutions you mention but where there are only a handful of members and one of those has between 10 and 25 times the population of each of the others?
It has served its time. Let it go. It is a Norwegian Blue state. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 7, 2023 0:33:28 GMT
Women in London should note that they shouldn't carry rape alarms, as police and military horses are so badly trained that they can be startled by one being set off.
Your clear public duty is to submit to rape, to protect everyone but yourself.
Alternatively, the Met police force is run by a bunch of lying shits.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 7, 2023 0:51:48 GMT
Women in London should note that they shouldn't carry rape alarms, as police and military horses are so badly trained that they can be startled by one being set off.
Your clear public duty is to submit to rape, to protect everyone but yourself.
Alternatively, the Met police force is run by a bunch of lying shits. This wasn't even the first version of the statement which went even further: |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2023 4:20:06 GMT
mercian Between 1945 and 1979 over six million council and housing association homes were built. Between 1980 and 1989 around a million council homes were sold at a discount with just 390,000 being built. You don't need to blame Thatcher for what happened later there's plenty of blame to attribute to her at the time.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2023 4:26:46 GMT
Leanderthal at it again Tweeting "Not My King? If you do not wish to live in a country that has a monarchy the solution is not to turn up with your silly boards. The solution is to emigrate.” Jonathan Harris, a Lib Dem councillor in West Northamptonshire, tweeted: “30p Lee – Idiot on display. You took the rights away for British people to live and work across the EU, and forget that great democracies are built on and absolutely allow the right to peaceful protest.”  |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2023 4:35:24 GMT
New series of Game of thrones Reign of FA a disappointment.  |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2023 4:54:19 GMT
Penny Mordaunt sponsored by Poundland  |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 7, 2023 5:02:19 GMT
Given the recent legislation to give police extra powers to arrest anyone on sight, I wonder whether the recent change of heart by conservatives to re-hire more police has nothing whatever to do with preventing the sort of crime affecting normal citizens, but to strengthen their capacity to prevent civil disobedience. What they wanted was more forces to fight the public, not defend them. Did others notice how essentially the public is now prevented from personally taking part in events like this by more and more crowd control keeping people away? You obviously missed the massed thousands in The Mall. no i didnt. But i did see big empty spaces in the parks, it was reported police prevented anyone else joining the crowd after 9, and one of the commentators said the crowds were now being deliberately kept smaller.it was also apparent at the recent funeral, where crowds had been marshalled so they a appeared as background where needed to look good but were being kept away from what would otherwise have been obvious viewing spots. They also deliberately restricted numbers allowed to view the lying in state. Its all obviously being managed as a tv event and not a participation event. They needed those extra police to turn people away who wanted to watch. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 7, 2023 5:09:07 GMT
I haven't seen this mentioned yet: www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/06/this-election-bloodbath-was-bad-enough-for-the-tories-tactical-voting-labour-brexit-general-electionYet growing evidence of an electorate sufficiently angry at Tory incumbents to back whoever stands a chance of defeating them may presage tactical voting on a scale not seen since 1997. Such tactical voting would bring many extra seats into play for both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Though the beneficiaries may vary, a strongly anti-incumbent mood is abroad. That is bad news for the government, and good news for all its opponents.
Robert Ford is professor of political science at Manchester University and co-author of The British General Election of 2019 I wonder if tactical voting is as effective in GEs as in LEs. Local Election voters are more likely to be politically aware (because the turnout is low). In a GE a lot more people vote - around 3 times as many - and I wonder how many of these will be aware of tactical voting opportunities in their constituency. Does anyone have any evidence of tactical voting making a difference in 2019 or any other time? Note - I'm not saying there aren't any examples but I suspect that there aren't many. seriously? Con won in 2019 because of tactical voting by leave supporters who abandoned their normal preference to vote brexit. What you suggest about locals might be true but then again those prone to tactical issue based voting rather than tribal party voting might be the ones who do not turn out at locals because there is no issue to motivate them. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 7, 2023 5:27:18 GMT
I will say first, just to get it out of the way, that no UK wide party is likely to offer this any time soon - but from my angle the answer is simple. The UK becomes the UR (united republic), we get rid of the whole "king in parliament" nonsense along with the monarchy and have a written constitution that guarantees the rights and responsibilities of the national parliaments of the members of the UR. Solved. Presumably we'd still need a head of state? Presumably elected. Would you want to risk Boris Johnson for instance winning that race? I think it's far better to have a ceremonial head of state with few real powers except in extremis, and we have the best in the world. Does the coronation of the King of Belgium get beamed all round the world and attract mass tourism? As things stand johnson was able to dissolve parliament illegally because the head of state is wholly under his control and has no independent authority. All power is in the hands of the pm. We have moved so far towards a constitutional monarchy that the crown mo longer exists as any check upon dictatorial powers. Hundreds of years of conflict to strip powers from just one man has gone into reverse aimed at handing absolute power to just one person again who is now the prime minister and not the monarch. Parliament made up of our representatives handed off power to one person just as Adolf hitler dismantled democracy in germany. There really is no secure democracy in the uk and the system continues to fail. Every parliament sees more erosion of parliaments rights. We are now in a position where government can use its majority to discipline mps by whim of the pm so they will or will not face a recall election. Can exclude people from public spaces for no better reason than they disapprove of their political views. One of Putins problems fighting his war seems to be because the recent revolution dismantled many state controls, so he has recently been rebuilding legislation to control citizens, which already exists in the uk. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 7, 2023 6:33:42 GMT
So I ask a simple question. How do you ensure that the Federal Parliament or the English Parliament (whichever makes the claim to be the inheritor of "1000 years of English history" - or both jointly) cannot simply pass a law, backed by the Supreme Court, that transfers all power back to it/them? Under the Uk constitution, its dead easy. All westminster has to do is pass a law which grants powers to another body which cannot be revoked without the express consent of that body. This sort of change has happened repatedly in our history. The house of commons only has power because it was granted a share of sovereignty in this same way. English constitutional law is entirely different, and assumes the untrammelled sovereignty of the UK Parliament, which may choose to devolve some powers from itself to subordinate bodies - and take them back as it so wishes. No, not really. It assumes there exists absolute sovereignty which can be shared out as people choose at a certain time, provided those who currently hold that power agree to changes. That there is no written constitution allows this flexibility to change. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 7, 2023 6:49:53 GMT
Quite a crescendo of booing apparent when the National Anthem was played before the Liverpool v Brentford fixture on MOTD just now. Draw from that what you will. The thing about vox pop interviews with crowds at the coronation is , obviously, they are all people who are so keen on monarchy they wanted to watch in person. Whereas I'd guess a football crowd in likely to be younger people than the population average who are therefore more anti monarchist. Maybe the government was quite correct to fear that had they not intervened, there would have been clear groups of anti monarchists present in the crowds and visible for the world to see. Perhaps totally polite and peaceful, but a whole raft of 'end the monarchy' posters would have rather broken the spell. Which however begs the question whether the government had any right to do that. In a democracy it should not have been able to prevent any such peaceful protst. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 7, 2023 7:03:01 GMT
Do you have any figures on how many ex-council houses were sold by the original owners, and how many are now in the hands of private landlords? No, but i think someone else posted some recently. However this policy is now 40 years old, and I do seem to recall some stats that on average people move every 5 years or so? On that basis they will almost all have been sold. But also their new owners will have been older rather than younger, and a good chunk must by now simply have died. And what evidence is there for that? I would be amazed if that was what she was seeking to do, rather than planning how to boost conservative votes! All might have been well, I do not object to giving people houses at state subsidised prices if they do not have one. The problem came because concils were forbidden to buld new ones. You seem to have lost that part of the policy, but it received much publicity at the time. The clear intent was to destroy the state owned housing sector. It was only later that housing associations started to arise which began building some state sponsored housing again, but nothing like on the same scale. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 7, 2023 7:14:17 GMT
Just realised that the CON/LAB voting percentages in the 2023 Bracknell Forest Local Elections are spookily similar to the 2019 UKGE percentages (CON 43.6%, LAB 32.1%). Imagine the kerfuffle if a similar 'understanding' had been in operation between opposition parties at that time nationwide, and a small LAB majority government had ensued, despite having fallen well short of CON in the popular vote. Just saying. Labour refused to adopt the standard of remain, and thats why what you suggest didnt happen. Also of course libs are now that bit further away from their disgrace in abjectly supporting con. (nor would I expect them to abjectly support labour. At minimum they should have required equal treatment for their policies and equal share of top cabinet jobs, even if it meant bringing lords into the cabinet) |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 7, 2023 7:24:23 GMT
pjw1961 (and eor) - you make a fair point, to which I would reply 'so what'. I don't see the UK, or any new form of it, as essential. England, and English attitudes, are the problem here, and if they cannot be contained for the sake of the rest of the UK, then why bother trying? I think 4 independent nations collaborating in a loose federation over joint initiatives like defence would be fine, but unless England grows up politically, I think we will continue to have these conversations.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2023 7:29:39 GMT
News in of yet another mass shooting in the USA this time in the city of Allen Texas there are 9 confirmed deaths with another 7 serious injuries the youngest victim is 5!
Allen is a prosperous city with high incomes and a large growing well educated population it has around 20% Asian population unusual for the U.S.
While Texas is a red state Allen is much less so voting narrowly in favour of Biden at the last general election.
It's about the same size as Hemel Hempstead
So a not exceptional middle class prosperous community where nothing much would be anticipated to happen.
The latest atrocity is the third mass shooting in Allen in two years!
Imagine that in your own town.
The Republican Governor of Texas has made gun ownership without checks and without any training easier since the last mass shooting of children and open and concealed carry is legal, he also struck down legislation that raised the legal age for firearm purchase from 18 to 21.
There is no minimum age at which an individual can't own a gun.
Guns making the U.S. safer by the day!
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on May 7, 2023 7:36:14 GMT
re: Sky news projection - Lab 36%, Con 29%, Lab 7 points ahead, Lab 298 seats, Con 238. That looks very much like what you get with a uniform national swing from the Tories 11% ahead to Lab 7 % ahead. A simple 9 point swing delivers 94 seats from Con to Lab. But this seems to overlook the very varied pattern in Thursday's Local Election results, with Lab and LibDems vastly outstipping UNS in seats where they are best placed against the Conservatives. The "clue" being when they call it "Projected National Share". I'll post Prof Curtice's view as well: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65475817Given we have regional data and likes of EC's prediction site allows the input of regional %s then someone can by all means plug the regional data and see how much difference that makes. Maybe then also do an additional adjustment to say "well, LDEM get the rural seats, LAB get the towns, Greens will vote best placed ABCON, etc" to get whatever number you want. Of course the biggest assumption (flaw in the prediction) is that a GE isn't likely to be until late 2024 - 18mths away. The polls will likely move between now and then. Although for sure, any model is only as good as it's assumptions and UNS (or Projected National Share) is a dodgy assumption - by all means take that up with Prof Curtice or Prof Thrasher. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2023 7:38:55 GMT
I will say first, just to get it out of the way, that no UK wide party is likely to offer this any time soon - but from my angle the answer is simple. The UK becomes the UR (united republic), we get rid of the whole "king in parliament" nonsense along with the monarchy and have a written constitution that guarantees the rights and responsibilities of the national parliaments of the members of the UR. Solved.
Those who haven't thought long and hard about the difficulties of constitutional reconstruction often think there is a simple answer which will mean all difficulties are "solved". (There are lots of them on my side of the indy debate too!)
Your written constitution is to be embedded exactly how? Lakeland Lass provided an answer which would work, but if your written constitution is simply to be established by an Act of Parliament, and that Parliament doesn't then vote to abolish itself, then that constitution can be annulled.We have only to look at how the Fixed Term Parliament Act was introduced by David Cameron, ignored by Theresa May, and then abolished by Boris Johnson, all to suit the perceived needs of the ruling party, to realise that any meaningful constitutional reform is literally impossible under the current Westminster Parliament, with it's notion of absolute parliamentary sovereignty. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on May 7, 2023 7:56:16 GMT
James E, what we can't ever know is what size the 'discounts' are from the current GE levels of support for the 2 main parties. I asserted with no evidence that the Lab discount would be lower than the typical 10% and the Tory one larger. That 36/29, though, seems consistent enough with Lab 43/45 and Tories 28/30 in current polling. Omnisis is not the best benchmark I believe but some uptick in VI polls for all but the Tories, and a fall for them, may well occur as it often does in these situations but typically wanes over a month or so. NB) Smug about my 6-8% prediction a couple of weeks ago. Kudos for your prediction. To follow up on my reply to James E then 'National' %s and local seat changes are different things. So it is fair to say that LAB didn't do as well as expected in % but CON did worse in seats. Of course people can ASSUME whatever they want for what will happen in a GE in 18mths time. We might well see very effective ABCON tactical voting. We might see Greens squeezed to vote LAB (or LDEM) as the best placed ABCON party in all but one seat in England. We might see RUK split the 'RoC' vote. We might also INSTEAD see the national polling gap narrow (although not until inflation starts to come down IMO), might see that a lot of the LE results were NIMBY "protest votes" against CON's local plans* (eg in my neck of the woods where people don't want new houses to be built) since it was LOCAL Elections and not a GE, etc. So "all to play for" but if anyone wants to put their money where their mouth is then bookies odds barely moved on the LE 'news'. IMO a hung parliament is still worth a punt although as we discussed a while back - the odds have already narrowed a bit. www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.167249195* Obviously biased and riddled with errors but one quote is worth stating WRT to one council within Hertfordshire that was NOC gain from CON: "Labour councillor Jeremy Newmark, leader of the opposition at Hertsmere borough council, said multiple factors were at play in this election, including the Conservatives’ local plan, which he said would have “decimated” the green belt, the council’s Conservative leadership and an improved standing for Labour among Jewish voters"
www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/07/anti-tory-coalition-leaves-party-reeling-and-ministers-at-risk-after-polls-disasterNB We'll see what NOC councils do about housing but LAB, LDEM, Green, RAs, etc won't be able to keep blaming a CON council for decimating the green belt now that CON have lost control of various councils. At HQ level then LAB+LDEM can't blame CON for decimation the green belt as CON recently ripped up housing targets. TBC what Starmer-LAB and Davey-LDEM say about housing in GE'24 manifestos but "bon chance" keeping NIMBY gains if they suggest building loads more houses. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 7, 2023 7:56:25 GMT
Laura kuenssberg has a piece on BBC website about election results and her last word is "The snapshot from Thursday is a valuable confirmation when it comes to our two main parties that Labour is well on its way - unimaginable in the ruins of 2019 - and the Conservatives are in deep, deep trouble. " www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65500690I have considerable problems with this from an analysis point of view, though I guess she is writing from the perspective of popular news reporting. i am sure she could do much better. The obvious problem is words like 'unimaginable in the ruins' and 'deep deep trouble'. Nothng happened this week which is unprecedented, or in 2019, or which will not occur again regularly. Parties have landslide victories from time to time. The recent past has seen exceptional swings based on the one issue politics of brexit, which was clearly responsible for the 2019 result, and to a complexly muddled extent also responsible for the result this week. Whatever brexit may finally prove to be, thus far it has been bad for the UK and voter support for the concept has fallen back to the extent the Uk now wants to rejoin. And yet labour continues to be a stay out party, despite all those votes to be had for a rejoin policy. If in 2019 it had been a clear remain party and regarded the election as a second referendum on staying in, then it could have won. Even if it had lost as happened anyway by adopting a neutral stance, right now it would have been better placed for a landslide, with fewer lib votes and more lab. not the current prospect of a maybe hung parliament with blocks of libs and SNP holding sway, but a clear lab majority. No con inclined voter was going to abandon con and vote labour in 2019 so as to stay in the EU when labour was not offering that. Labour did not want to win with Corbyn as its leader. Labour did not want to win on a remain mandate. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 7, 2023 7:59:09 GMT
Did that stupid oath of allegiance to Charlie go ahead? Apparently it was toned down at the last minute. |
|
|
|
Post by norfolkandgood on May 7, 2023 8:02:16 GMT
I do recall our exchanges - but still do not see this week's Labour success there as a harbinger of Labour being likely to win the parliamentary seat next year. Great Yarmouth is now a hung council and likely to be more winnable despite the 2019 result there. The biggest factor here might be boundary changes - I understand that South Norfolk will see major changes while Great Yarmouth remains the same. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 7, 2023 8:02:39 GMT
I will say first, just to get it out of the way, that no UK wide party is likely to offer this any time soon - but from my angle the answer is simple. The UK becomes the UR (united republic), we get rid of the whole "king in parliament" nonsense along with the monarchy and have a written constitution that guarantees the rights and responsibilities of the national parliaments of the members of the UR. Solved. Presumably we'd still need a head of state? Presumably elected. Would you want to risk Boris Johnson for instance winning that race? I think it's far better to have a ceremonial head of state with few real powers except in extremis, and we have the best in the world. Does the coronation of the King of Belgium get beamed all round the world and attract mass tourism? You are making the mistake of thinking of executive Presidents of the US or French model, which are relatively rare. Most Presidents are no more executive and probably more neutral than our King. See Germany, Italy, Israel, Ireland and a mass of other examples. What they do have is a role in protecting the constitution from misbehaving Prime Ministers. So, for example, when the Queen went along with Boris Johnson's attempt to illegally prorogue parliament, a President would have been obliged to say no. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 7, 2023 8:04:50 GMT
To follow up on my reply to James E then 'National' %s and local seat changes are different things. So it is fair to say that LAB didn't do as well as expected in % but CON did worse in seats. That is exactly what you would expect if you assume voters act tactically to get tories out. Assuming all voters answer honestly and polling is accurate, people will vote in local elections more for libs because they are more often the contenders against con than at general elections. There will therefore be a smaller vote share for lab at locals, but their reported voting intention at a general is still correct because there will be more lab candidates. This all tells us nothing about whether anyone really wants libs or lab or con to be their local councillors or MPs. Its simply the choice they have been given by the two elite groups which control the government of the Uk and choose its ministers and MPs, the labour and conservative political parties. (with side orders in some places by SNP, libs, etc). The Uk is ruled by probably only a few thousand people who will decide who comprise the government and formal opposition after the next election. Its one of the features in particular of FPP. (similar but even worse problems apply in US) Never forget the politcal adage that the other side may be your opponents, but your enemies are on your side. As Corbyn experienced. Lab and con need each other and have more in common than separates them. Many politicians would be perfectly happy in either party. Winston Churchill famously switched sides twice! |
|
