Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[Edwardian]

Just now, alastairq said:

 I do wonder what sort of result might ensue, had everybody else had the choice about the future of Scotland, instead?

 

I don't know, but I could take a guess .....

 

 

And I wouldn't blame them. You cannot, or, at least, shouldn't be able, to forced someone to stay married to you!

 

I believe very much in the Union, and in Scotland's place within it, but you've got to want to be in it; you can't be kept there!

 

 

 

[Andy Hayter]

42 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 I was referring to the 'social leanings' of the EU establishment , rather than the political leanings of parties within constituent EU members.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I take it that you do realise that this EU establishment consisted of politicians from those social parties of the constituent members.  Roy Jenkins, Neil Kinnock, Catherine Ashton and Peter Mandelson were among the UK representatives.  They do not change their political leanings on being elected into the EU establishment.

 

Often referred to as the unelected mandarins of the EU, people frequently don't realise that these people were the civil service of the EU* and while they might suggest policy the decisions always remained with the elected heads of the individual countries.  

 

* I know of no country that elects its civil servants.  

[rocor]

7 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 I do wonder what sort of result might ensue, had everybody else had the choice about the future of Scotland, instead?

 

That could have ended with the paradoxical situation, that whereas the Scots voted against independence in the 2014 referendum, if it had been UK wide, the vote may have been in favour. 

[Edwardian]

4 minutes ago, rocor said:

 

That could have ended with the paradoxical situation, that whereas the Scots voted against independence in the 2014 referendum, if it had been UK wide, the vote may have been in favour. 

 

Oh, I'm not so sure, after all, the English are not, by nature, great complainers, but are generally politely tolerant of those who are!

 

 

[Nearholmer]

3 hours ago, rocor said:

if it had been UK wide, the vote may have been in favour. 

……. of not bothering to vote at all.

 

I really cannot imagine the population of England bothering with it much at all, the Welsh might, in order to make a point of their own,  and NI would have polarised into unionists who would be very firmly against, and some nationalists in favour.

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

……. of not bothering to vote at all.

 

I really cannot imagine the population of England bothering with it much at all, the Welsh might, in order to make a point of their own,  and NI would have polarised into unionists who would be very firmly against, and some nationalists in favour.

 

I would vote, as an English resident, given the chance. I feel I ought to have some say in the break-up of my nation. Each country would be intellectually impoverished without the other.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Compound2632

[Nearholmer]

Are you, though, Mr or Mrs Typical, or might you be a bit untypically thoughtful?

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Are you, though, Mr or Mrs Typical, or might you be a bit untypically thoughtful?

 

Who am I to say?

 

At the time of the first referendum, the strongest views on disenfranchisement I heard were from persons of Scots birth resident in England. They were all against independence.

 

But I suppose Scots one meets in England are not typical Scots, just as the Americans* one meets are not typical of their compatriots - although in the latter case more extremely so.

 

*Citizens of the United States.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Compound2632

[Regularity]

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

I don't know, but I could take a guess .....

 

 

And I wouldn't blame them. You cannot, or, at least, shouldn't be able, to forced someone to stay married to you!

 

I believe very much in the Union, and in Scotland's place within it, but you've got to want to be in it; you can't be kept there!

 

 

 

They can take our land, but they canna take our historical accuracy, as Mel Gibson would have a descendant of the Welsh, fighting for a descendant of an Anglo-Norman family, say...

[Regularity]

7 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Many of the perceived interferences from Brussels in the UK were in  fact the British Governments' intransigence to do things they were always allowed to do under EU rules.

As examples:

 

Immigration - the UK always had the ability to eject (permanently if necessary) EU immigrants who were or became a burden on society.  That it failed to eject people ( whether criminals, those demanding social security payments or whatever) suggests that those people were in fact needed and contributing positively to the UK economy - something that maybe is now coming to light   with shortages of care workers, HGV drivers, fruit and vegetable pickers, abattoir workers etc..

 

Blue passports - they were always possible but never introduced until they became a symbol of "freedom from the EU".  There was never a mandated standard for EU passports in terms of the colour of the cover.  

 

Sovereignty - accepting Edwardian's comments about the impact of any treaty (and the UK is now rushing around the rest of the world getting new treaties), the UK never lost sovereignty - witness that it was able to leave the EU.  This was largely smoke and mirrors created to support the exit.  Witness also the number of derogations the UK had regarding other supposed imposed EU standards.

I am still waiting for people who said the EU was tyrannical to explain where and when this actually happened. I hope I am right in understanding your point of view, Andy, and that you are pointing out that all of the major "issues" that were laid at the feet of the EU by the Brexiteers were actually failings by HMG to implement options that were there before them.

 

As part of creating a common ground for free trade in a free market, each nation state agreed - usually via its domestic democratically elected leaders, occasionally by a vote to endorse a new treaty - to make certain things mean the same in each member state: free trade is impossible with a common understanding. It also provided each member state with the opportunities available to enter trade deals with much bigger countries, as a common entity. Virtually everything flowed from this - even things like the alleged "socialism". (And I have a friend who has disliked the EU because there are too many prominent right-wingers in most European countries, and the EU is "just a trading club" to him.)

But in France because they have properly implemented the Working Time Directive to ensure that people get proper rest and time for themselves, if workers want to be paid more, they are told that they have to be more productive within their working hours. In the UK, if workers want more, they do more hours. Can't think why anyone would want to treat the WTD as a bad thing, but there you go.

 

Now, I agree, there were and are some problems with the way the EU is set up, but currently it isn't much different to many aspects of how the USA is run, albeit with one or two very notable exceptions.

1) There is an overall body for suggesting legislation, consisting of the elected leader of each country, one per country regardless of size. In the USA, the senate has two senators per state, but they are directly elected - but initially they were the state governors, and can instead still be so in certain circumstances.

2) The "second" or "lower" chamber has no teeth in the EU. We directly elect MEPs, but they are not a legislative chamber, unlike the House of Commons and the House of Representatives.

3) The doesn't elect an overall president: there is an appointed person, but his role is not to govern but to manage. The President of the USA does not govern (in theory!) either, but presides over the management of international affairs and matters which concern every state in the union, such as commerce. But he (still waiting for a she!) is at least elected.

The obvious solution is to have two elected senators per EU state, give the MEPs actual power that mattered, and have a directly/popularly elected President with all three institutions having clearly defined roles and limitations on their powers - like the American and German federal models - and unlike the French penchant for "centralisation" which Mrs. T. wrongly called "federalisation".

 

But you see, doing that takes "sovereignty" (actually, the appearance of making decisions) away from places like Westminster, Berlin, Paris, Madrid, Rome, etc, and puts it into the hands of the directly elected people in Brussels - or Strasbourg as the French insist on having the European Parliament in their country. (Something else which is genuinely stupid and costly.) However, what it doesn't do is take power away from the people. Their mandate is simply refocused, and "national" governments, over time, become more focussed on their own countries - which is what happens in the USA where the State Legislature has far more impact on the day-to-day lives of Americans that does the posturing in Washington.

 

We - the UK - could have taken control of this and proposed radical reforms to support democracy, for which almost all of the "smaller" nations would have given us support.

 

There is one benefit to leaving, of course. London has escaped the imposition of new banking regulations designed to uncover such operations as "off-shore" tax havens. That will benefit a few wealthy people with more money than they can use, as it means as well as earning on the back of these dubious (but not, I must say, illegal) operations, they will avoid tax. 

 

I despair at the shambles we have at the top (cabinet) table: although in Westminster, they are more concerned with their links to the "square mile" of the City of London, and conflate The City of London with London. Just as most people in London equate London with England, and too many of the English equate England with Great Britain, and don't understand the difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

 

Brexit didn't have to have been as bad as it has been: haulage companies had 4 years to train more UK resident lorry drivers and pay them a decent wage, rather than n paying what would be a good wage in Eastern Europe. Supermarkets could have paid decent money for the supply of their food, enabling farmers to pay enough to attract local pickers, rather than relying on gangmasters bringing in migrant workers. There was 4 years notice for that. Or we could not prepare, not actually have a deal in mind, and run the risk of sporadic shortages, made worse by the utter shambles of management of COVID-19.

Of course, planning for all that would have meant prices increasing to pay for this, who knows: maybe a few quid per head per week, so a total cost increase of maybe only £10 per UK citizen per week, ignoring all the other costs that I personally have to pay when I buy something from Germany (VAT!) 

Compares rather poorly with the £5.83 (the £350mn a week claim on the side of the Boris bus) we were paying for being in the EU, but fair's fair: we had a choice. Except that anyone who went through and worked this out was labelled as a "remoaner" or accused of supporting "project fear". Nothing like a combination of a straw man and ad hominem attacks to get people going and running away from using their brains.

 

No, we knew what remaining meant: access to cheap labour, access to a large market, access to some massive trade negotiations as a bloc. It also meant more legislation to protect the interests of ordinary people, to harmonise trade, and to put curbs on London as the world's major centre for (legal, but immoral) money laundering.

 

I accept that some people have a visceral loathing for the EU. Fair enough, but if you want to trade, you have to agree terms and the EU took a lot of hassle out of that.

So, come up with viable, practical alternatives. The leave campaign produced nothing but rhetoric.

 

I accept that some people didn't want to spend time reviewing the above key issues.

I accept that some people simply didn't want to think about the issues.

 

But I have difficulty in seeing why those people think they could exercise their prerogative to vote, without first engaging their brains and seeing that they were being comprehensively lied to, and voted to leave when it wasn't explained what "leave" meant, and then think their position was justifiable.

 

I also accept that a small number of people will benefit immensely at the continuing laxity of money movements via London, and some Eton-educated chancers also saw this as an opportunity to gain "power". 

They were in favour of change for their own purposes> they care not a jot for anyone else, merely hoped to dupe them into behaving like turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

One thing you can be sure of, if we ever want in, we won't get the various opt-outs we had before we left.

[Compound2632]

Why can I only use the agree button once per post?

[Edwardian]

44 minutes ago, Regularity said:

I am still waiting for people who said the EU was tyrannical to explain where and when this actually happened. I hope I am right in understanding your point of view, Andy, and that you are pointing out that all of the major "issues" that were laid at the feet of the EU by the Brexiteers were actually failings by HMG to implement options that were there before them.

 

As part of creating a common ground for free trade in a free market, each nation state agreed - usually via its domestic democratically elected leaders, occasionally by a vote to endorse a new treaty - to make certain things mean the same in each member state: free trade is impossible with a common understanding. It also provided each member state with the opportunities available to enter trade deals with much bigger countries, as a common entity. Virtually everything flowed from this - even things like the alleged "socialism". (And I have a friend who has disliked the EU because there are too many prominent right-wingers in most European countries, and the EU is "just a trading club" to him.)

But in France because they have properly implemented the Working Time Directive to ensure that people get proper rest and time for themselves, if workers want to be paid more, they are told that they have to be more productive within their working hours. In the UK, if workers want more, they do more hours. Can't think why anyone would want to treat the WTD as a bad thing, but there you go.

 

Now, I agree, there were and are some problems with the way the EU is set up, but currently it isn't much different to many aspects of how the USA is run, albeit with one or two very notable exceptions.

1) There is an overall body for suggesting legislation, consisting of the elected leader of each country, one per country regardless of size. In the USA, the senate has two senators per state, but they are directly elected - but initially they were the state governors, and can instead still be so in certain circumstances.

2) The "second" or "lower" chamber has no teeth in the EU. We directly elect MEPs, but they are not a legislative chamber, unlike the House of Commons and the House of Representatives.

3) The doesn't elect an overall president: there is an appointed person, but his role is not to govern but to manage. The President of the USA does not govern (in theory!) either, but presides over the management of international affairs and matters which concern every state in the union, such as commerce. But he (still waiting for a she!) is at least elected.

The obvious solution is to have two elected senators per EU state, give the MEPs actual power that mattered, and have a directly/popularly elected President with all three institutions having clearly defined roles and limitations on their powers - like the American and German federal models - and unlike the French penchant for "centralisation" which Mrs. T. wrongly called "federalisation".

 

But you see, doing that takes "sovereignty" (actually, the appearance of making decisions) away from places like Westminster, Berlin, Paris, Madrid, Rome, etc, and puts it into the hands of the directly elected people in Brussels - or Strasbourg as the French insist on having the European Parliament in their country. (Something else which is genuinely stupid and costly.) However, what it doesn't do is take power away from the people. Their mandate is simply refocused, and "national" governments, over time, become more focussed on their own countries - which is what happens in the USA where the State Legislature has far more impact on the day-to-day lives of Americans that does the posturing in Washington.

 

We - the UK - could have taken control of this and proposed radical reforms to support democracy, for which almost all of the "smaller" nations would have given us support.

 

There is one benefit to leaving, of course. London has escaped the imposition of new banking regulations designed to uncover such operations as "off-shore" tax havens. That will benefit a few wealthy people with more money than they can use, as it means as well as earning on the back of these dubious (but not, I must say, illegal) operations, they will avoid tax. 

 

I despair at the shambles we have at the top (cabinet) table: although in Westminster, they are more concerned with their links to the "square mile" of the City of London, and conflate The City of London with London. Just as most people in London equate London with England, and too many of the English equate England with Great Britain, and don't understand the difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

 

Brexit didn't have to have been as bad as it has been: haulage companies had 4 years to train more UK resident lorry drivers and pay them a decent wage, rather than n paying what would be a good wage in Eastern Europe. Supermarkets could have paid decent money for the supply of their food, enabling farmers to pay enough to attract local pickers, rather than relying on gangmasters bringing in migrant workers. There was 4 years notice for that. Or we could not prepare, not actually have a deal in mind, and run the risk of sporadic shortages, made worse by the utter shambles of management of COVID-19.

Of course, planning for all that would have meant prices increasing to pay for this, who knows: maybe a few quid per head per week, so a total cost increase of maybe only £10 per UK citizen per week, ignoring all the other costs that I personally have to pay when I buy something from Germany (VAT!) 

Compares rather poorly with the £5.83 (the £350mn a week claim on the side of the Boris bus) we were paying for being in the EU, but fair's fair: we had a choice. Except that anyone who went through and worked this out was labelled as a "remoaner" or accused of supporting "project fear". Nothing like a combination of a straw man and ad hominem attacks to get people going and running away from using their brains.

 

No, we knew what remaining meant: access to cheap labour, access to a large market, access to some massive trade negotiations as a bloc. It also meant more legislation to protect the interests of ordinary people, to harmonise trade, and to put curbs on London as the world's major centre for (legal, but immoral) money laundering.

 

I accept that some people have a visceral loathing for the EU. Fair enough, but if you want to trade, you have to agree terms and the EU took a lot of hassle out of that.

So, come up with viable, practical alternatives. The leave campaign produced nothing but rhetoric.

 

I accept that some people didn't want to spend time reviewing the above key issues.

I accept that some people simply didn't want to think about the issues.

 

But I have difficulty in seeing why those people think they could exercise their prerogative to vote, without first engaging their brains and seeing that they were being comprehensively lied to, and voted to leave when it wasn't explained what "leave" meant, and then think their position was justifiable.

 

I also accept that a small number of people will benefit immensely at the continuing laxity of money movements via London, and some Eton-educated chancers also saw this as an opportunity to gain "power". 

They were in favour of change for their own purposes> they care not a jot for anyone else, merely hoped to dupe them into behaving like turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

One thing you can be sure of, if we ever want in, we won't get the various opt-outs we had before we left.

 

Well, you say all that Simon, but you cannot win arguments with the truth, or with facts, and especially not by knowing what you're talking about (who have we all had enough of, boys and girls?)

 

No, Honest Ulster Creationalists have been cynically denied the Great British Banger, thus proving how devious and ingeniously evil Johnny Foreigner really is!  We are well shot of him and his unsporting insistence that HMG honours binding international agreements freely entered into. Boo him, boo him and his garlic-eating, soap-shunning ways!

[rocor]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I would vote, as an English resident, given the chance. I feel I ought to have some say in the break-up of my nation. Each country would be intellectually impoverished without the other.

 

I would have voted in for it, on the basis that I am in favour of individual countries having the right to self-determination.

 

Not that I am an advocate for the breakup of the UK.  I am just not in favour of the increasing trend of the UK to concentrate powers in the hands of central government, that has been occurring during the past forty years or so.

 

A  recent example of which, was that certain controls that the EU had been given, and have now returned, not being dispersed to the regional assemblies.

 

 The major parties in Parliament appear to View England and the UK. as being synonymous. 

 

If the UK splits up, it will not be because of rampant nationalism, but because of the petty dictatorial tendencies, that can be witnessed as the attributes, of some English politicians.

[Compound2632]

37 minutes ago, rocor said:

The major parties in Parliament appear to View England and the UK. as being synonymous. 

 

That's because, with the SNP dominant in Scotland, Scottish seats don't affect the balance of power at Westminster.

[Nearholmer]

2 hours ago, rocor said:

If the UK splits up, it will not be because of rampant nationalism, but because of the petty dictatorial tendencies, that can be witnessed as the attributes, of some English politicians.

 

Indeed. If the smaller nations, and regions of comaparable size within England, were given decent devolved powers, and below that we had a set of lower-tier unitary authorities, also with decent powers, and Westminster only had powers that necessarily have to sit at a higher level, we'd probably be a happier bunch. It wouldn't solve all our problems, but it might result in better focus on solving some of them.

 

But, what I've just outlined relies on the principle of subsidiarity, which the EU understands, and which career politicians in the Westminster orbit, and a lot more of the "ruling class" establishment, fear. And, assuming we had remained in the EU, much longer term, and not uniquely in the UK, it would open some very good questions about the utility of having two "top tiers", in our case Westminster and the EU.

 

IMO there are some very good things about our system (I like the solid link between one MP and a defined constituency, for instance, and think that PR and/or multi-member mega-constituencies are harmful), but the UK is the wrong size in the modern world, too big to give the attention and to understand the nuances that apply beyond London, and too small to be useful militarily or when up against globalised corporations.

 

We are snared in our geography and history - an island just so big (plus six counties of another island), a monarchy that attained sway over all of that, and a parliament that has wrested most of the powers from the monarch ....... all creating this too-big-too-small thing.

 

Where things get difficult is in trying to create combines that act on behalf of hundreds of millions of people, and are in some way acceptably democratic. The US model is cracking under the strain; the Chinese model is a con trick, in that it relies on cod-democracy within one party; the EU model has been a brave try, but (IMO) gives far too much power and prestige to its civil service, and gives the voter no "clear line of sight" between the ballot box and what happens thereafter. Nobody on earth has yet worked out how to do this in a sustainable and equitable way (India??).

 

Some combines that act for vast numbers of people work with no direct democracy at all, the UN and NATO for instance; they rely on representatives being nominated by lower tiers that themselves are (should be) democratically accountable, and IIRC the proto-EU worked on that basis. But, that couldn't really work for a law-making combine, could it?

 

How does The Federation in Star Trek work? The glimpses of the governing arrangements one got in the 1960s episodes (I haven't watched it since Captain Kirk was strolling about trying to hold his stomach in, and his chest out, c1972) gave an impression of wisdom, grandeur, peace, and luxuriant draperies. Could we learn from that?

Edited September 10, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Edwardian]

41 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

How does The Federation in Star Trek work? The glimpses of the governing arrangements one got in the 1960s episodes (I haven't watched it since Captain Kirk was strolling about trying to hold his stomach in, and his chest out, c1972) gave an impression of wisdom, grandeur, peace, and luxuriant draperies. Could we learn from that?

 

It's clearly a constant source of frustration over the years.

 

 

 

[alastairq]

.........and loss of hair?

[Caley Jim]

Being proud to be both Scottish and a citizen of the United Kingdom I have no wish to see another referendum.  During the last one those who wished to remain part of the latter were, in some quarters, branded as traitors.  Those in favour of independence really thought they had it in the bag and didn't realise that there was a silent majority who didn't agree with them.  It now seems to me rather like a team who lost a cup final asking for the game to be played again because they didn't like the result.  Just because there are now a majority of MSP's from parties who support independence doesn't mean to say the the majority of the public are of the same mind.  When you vote for a candidate/party it doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with all the policies they espouse.  Often you chose the one with whom you find the most agreement and can accept those elements with which you don't fully agree.

 

There are far too many questions which were not, and still have not been, fully answered (currency being one, the border another).  Where would we have been following the antics of Fred the Shred (CEO RBoS) if we had not had the backing of the Bank of England to bail us out?  Where would we have found the funds for furlough and business support over the last 18 months?  Does NS think she can just waltz back into the EU without jumping through more hoops than you'll see in a circus ring?

 

It is true that the way Scotland has been treated by successive UK governments has driven much of the dissatisfaction with the Union, but that could to some extent be ameliorated by further devolution.  The same goes for parts of England.  We have, after all, always had our own Legal, education and health systems.

 

Jim (rant over - lets get back to modelling!)

[Edwardian]

34 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Being proud to be both Scottish and a citizen of the United Kingdom

 

 

I should have thought that, indeed, that should be possible.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

 

I have no wish to see another referendum.  During the last one those who wished to remain part of the latter were, in some quarters, branded as traitors.  Those in favour of independence really thought they had it in the bag and didn't realise that there was a silent majority who didn't agree with them.  It now seems to me rather like a team who lost a cup final asking for the game to be played again because they didn't like the result.  Just because there are now a majority of MSP's from parties who support independence doesn't mean to say the the majority of the public are of the same mind.  When you vote for a candidate/party it doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with all the policies they espouse.  Often you chose the one with whom you find the most agreement and can accept those elements with which you don't fully agree.

 

It will be a perpetual black mark against the Green Party.  Breaking countries down into smaller sovereign political units does not seem to be a sensible starting point for stopping climate change, which needs as much co-operation as possible.  I don't really understand their position, but I don't associate progressive parties, like the Greens, with populist nationalist parties, like the SNP, so it makes no sense to me.  Obviously I lack sufficient knowledge of domestic politics in Scotland to fathom that one.

 

34 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

There are far too many questions which were not, and still have not been, fully answered (currency being one, the border another).  Where would we have been following the antics of Fred the Shred (CEO RBoS) if we had not had the backing of the Bank of England to bail us out?  Where would we have found the funds for furlough and business support over the last 18 months?  Does NS think she can just waltz back into the EU without jumping through more hoops than you'll see in a circus ring?

 

Indeed, pretty much b*ggered us all as it was, imagine a bit of the UK without the HM Treasury and BoE to fall back on?

 

34 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

It is true that the way Scotland has been treated by successive UK governments has driven much of the dissatisfaction with the Union, but that could to some extent be ameliorated by further devolution.  The same goes for parts of England.  We have, after all, always had our own Legal, education and health systems.

 

Entirely fair,  I feel like that, as a lad from the provinces, and not from any especially affluent (i.e. London overspill) place.  I think a certain amount of regional devolution in England is now essential.  

 

It does not follow that I think the Balkanisation of the UK by bits of it declaring themselves independent is a good idea. Imagine a sovereign Yorkshire? F--king terrifying idea. 

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Jim (rant over - lets get back to modelling!)

 

 

Me too, soon, I promise.

[alastairq]

The topic of proportional representation reared its ugly head whilst in conversation with one of next door's feral garage cats!

A very laudable objective.....however...when I look at all those countries who do have PR.....I wonder how or why ?

Nearly every government  of a PR-voting State seems to be hamstrung for months & months on end, whilst endless bits of wheeling & dealing with very minority[often quite extremist?] political parties, goes on.

Israel. Germany, & so on..?

Which makes me wonder whether PR actually does work at all? Or, just most of the time? Or, just some of the time??

 

Every election seems to end up getting watered down to nothing, as those political groups with larger vote numbers, have to compromise & compormise until there's nowt left?

 

The GB system, whilst in no way perfect, at least results in some form of continuous government.

It doesn't result in many & frequent new elections simply because there aren't enough representatives of any one political colour to form government.

 

I look at other countries with their unstable governments and wonder where it all goes wrong, this PR?

[Edwardian]

5 minutes ago, alastairq said:

The topic of proportional representation reared its ugly head whilst in conversation with one of next door's feral garage cats!

A very laudable objective.....however...when I look at all those countries who do have PR.....I wonder how or why ?

Nearly every government  of a PR-voting State seems to be hamstrung for months & months on end, whilst endless bits of wheeling & dealing with very minority[often quite extremist?] political parties, goes on.

Israel. Germany, & so on..?

Which makes me wonder whether PR actually does work at all? Or, just most of the time? Or, just some of the time??

 

Every election seems to end up getting watered down to nothing, as those political groups with larger vote numbers, have to compromise & compormise until there's nowt left?

 

The GB system, whilst in no way perfect, at least results in some form of continuous government.

It doesn't result in many & frequent new elections simply because there aren't enough representatives of any one political colour to form government.

 

I look at other countries with their unstable governments and wonder where it all goes wrong, this PR?

 

Yes, 'cos our system works sooooo much better!!!!!!!

 

Bozza v. Jezza; that's like giving me the choice of sawing my right leg off with a rusty saw, or my left.

 

One point Crackpot Cummings was certainly right about!!

 

''In no way perfect.....''?  As in Gen. Custer at the Little Big Horn: ''Men, while from a tactical standpoint our position is in no way perfect ....''

 

 

[Welchester]

8 hours ago, alastairq said:

.........and loss of hair?

 

It was a wig.

[Regularity]

1 minute ago, Welchester said:

 

It was a whig.

Nah. A Tory.

[alastairq]

AM I right in thinking, the Tories were somewhat to the left of the Whigs?

[Edwardian]

16 minutes ago, alastairq said:

AM I right in thinking, the Tories were somewhat to the left of the Whigs?

 

No