horsefly

Bravo Rehan Ahmed. First test wicket on a very unhelpful pitch.

Great idea! Let's settle for mid-table, and applaud as Omobamidele, Sargent, Gibbs, Aarons, Nunez, Sara, etc all walk out of the door to join more ambitious clubs in June.

Sorry, but that's very complacent and somewhat naïve. In 2017 they won 94 seats in the German parliament and formed the largest opposition party. Are you seriously suggesting that makes them an irrelevance in German politics? If so then all the opposition parties in the UK are irrelevant too. That is an extraordinary view of the nature of political culture and the influence parties gain by occupying seats in parliament. Parties with members of parliament get to speak in parliament and to the nation and directly influence public discourse. You don't have to peer very far back in history to remind yourself of an obscure far-right political party in Germany that managed to turn a handful of parliamentary seats into the greatest crisis the world has seen. As for your claims about Farage under PR, the facts are there for you to see if you wish to look. The UK elections to the EU parliament (under a proportional system) saw a tidal wave of UKIP MEPs elected to parliament. Those seats gave UKIP a massively influential political platform that made the news on an almost daily basis. Under a PR system in previous UK elections UKIP garnered enough votes to have ensured several seats in the Commons; the idea Farage would not have been a shoe-in for one of those seats is pushing credulity to the limits. I'm afraid the claim that Farage turned the "establishment upside down" is a sop Farage himself loves people to promulgate to venerate his Trumpian ego but is way off the mark. It was very obviously the ERG that wrecked May's premiership, caused her downfall, and put Johnson into power. I.e. it was a small caucus of MPs elected to parliament who wielded extraordinary power (way beyond what their small number merited) who "turned the establishment upside down". Once Johnson declared his intention to "get Brexit done" UKIP and Farage became an irrelevance. In fact there is much to learn about PR by imagining the ERG to be a separate party itself during that period. Indeed, they were effectively UKIP's representatives in the commons far more than they were Tories. The vast majority of MPs of all sides were remainers, yet this very small group of MPs was able to exploit the particular circumstances of parliament at that time to wield extraordinary unwarranted levels of power. In many ways the ERG represented the primary concern expressed by opponents of PR, that a small group of extremists can hold the balance of power in ways that far exceed what their number warrants.

It wasn't me who said that was a problem, it was YOU in your response to Sonyc. I merely pointed out that you "chastised" him for something that you yourself had done only a few posts earlier. But I really don't want to waste the whole point of another thread in useless badinage so let's please agree to discuss the issues that have genuine import.

Erm! you did precisely that when you listed what you considered to be the policy advantages of the LibDems being in coalition with the Tories.

There's much I can agree to in your entire post but I'm afraid I find this paragraph completely baffling. The AfD in Germany has had a massive recent presence in the German parliament, and malign influence in German political life generally, "After securing representation in 14 of the 16 German state parliaments by October 2017, AfD won 94 seats in the 2017 German federal election and became the third largest party in the country as well as the largest opposition party" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany). A party with extremist far right views like theirs wouldn't gain a single seat under our FPTP system. Had PR been in operation in the last GEs in this country Farage would certainly have won a seat and be leading a significant caucus that would be holding the government to ransom on a daily basis. We wouldn't just be trying to mitigate the damage done by a bad Brexit deal, but be mitigating the absolute disaster of a no deal Brexit. Johnson "neutralised" the threat to the Tories presented by Farage's mob by promising to get "Brexit done". Once he had achieved that he was able to ignore the extreme rantings of Farage and his loons as they had no more power to assert. However, the presence of Farage and his party in the Commons voting on every issue would undoubtedly have pushed the Tories much further to the right than has currently been the case. It doesn't help the cause of those of us who support PR to ignore this inconvenient reality.

I reckon someone has just won a few million dollars at BetFred (note, other money fleecing betting shops are available)

Bravo! Wasn't difficult to post about Commons reform on an appropriately titled thread was it! While I'm totally in favour of PR for reasons of fairer democratic representation I think you are wildly overestimating its ability to be some kind of "magic bullet". You only need to take a look at the recent political history of the many European countries that have a system of PR (e.g. Austria) to realise it has no impact on reducing the potential for corruption. And for some reason you fail to acknowledge that the 2010 GE resulted in no single party majority and lead to a coalition of the type PR would be very likely to produce in all future elections. That coalition saw a huge number of Liberal voters who cast their vote to get rid of student fees (a cast iron guarantee in the Liberal manifesto) completely cheated in a sordid stitch up between Cameron and Clegg. Similarly, the idea that PR would mean, "there would be no mechanism for the likes of Farage to terrorise any larger parties as is possible with First Past the Post", is frankly astonishing. The reality of PR in practice throughout Europe is precisely the opposite. Those of us who support PR can not simply pretend that it doesn't increase the power of extremist parties who often gain enough votes (and thus seats) to play powerbrokers in forming coalition governments. Had PR been in place in previous elections UKIP would have been a major player in the Commons. So let's not be naïve; PR's primary justification is that it provides a fairer system of democratic representation; but it would certainly not be some kind of panacea leading to less corruption and greater tolerance in our political system. If anything it will standardly lead to a more complex political situation bringing with it an inherent potential for sordid and corrupt political deal making. The collapse in trust in our political system penetrates well beyond the specifics of our electoral system and has its roots in the lack of transparency about actual government practice. The deep reforms required in getting politicians to behave with integrity and transparency have little to do with the voting system but almost everything to do with the rules of parliamentary conduct.

It frequently is. He's more than capable of contributing usefully but frequently refuses to do so. Refusal to acknowledge the very obvious joke by Herman is just one example from many.

Trump's digital trading cards collection has just been updated with a new image:

I'm afraid he is either too ignorant to see what was an obvious (and a funny and pertinent) joke, or just playing his usual pathetic game of trying to sabotage every thread on the site by distracting from actual debate of the issues.

That wins best pun of the year hands down Gunny

I think he just misunderstood what his doctor said about getting laser eye surgery

F**k me you really are a sad old man with too much time on your hands and too little brain to contribute anything useful. Trawl back again and you will find I didn't initiate that diversion from the subject. Do grow up.

I guess Farage will read this then slag off the fishermen for being a taxi service for migrants: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/british-fisherman-tells-sky-news-how-crew-saved-dozens-screaming-for-help-from-sinking-boat/ar-AA15gMzo?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2065fac537924772ae4bfe700403d6e5

And to think people still claim there is a cost of living crisis! Bloody fools, turn on all your heaters open the windows, and loudly sing, "Sterling to USD is $1.24!!! Hurrah!!!!"

Spot on Sonyc! It's not as if this Keynesian economic strategy hasn't been proven time and again to be the way to wrest an economy out of dire failure (you need little more than a passing acquaintance with 20th century history). Yet so pervasive has the free market low-taxation dogma been in UK politics that we actually had a Tory government that further trashed an already broken economy with a plan to borrow billions, not to invest in infrastructure and public projects, but to pay for unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy. Truly unbelievable!

Dreadful breaking news: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/channel-rescue-people-feared-dead-after-migrant-boat-incident-off-kent-coast-latest-updates/ar-AA15ghhM?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ad1209546ec74de7a83b7caa24b47413

Now post that on a thread titled: "Reform of the House of Commons".

Probably the most important economist in modern history, John Maynard Keynes, was said to be frequently disillusioned by economics as a discipline because all to often it discussed the "science" of money separately from the fundamental social purpose of money (see Robert Skidelsky's excellent biography). He believed economic strategy must be fundamentally informed by social purpose rather than be seen as some abstract science concerned with maximising money supply for its own sake. Low-tax right-wing dogma ignores this fundamental link, indeed, seeks to repress it. It should come as no surprise that many of the countries that rank above the UK on the "Happiness index" https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world are also countries with a higher tax burden on the individuals living there. It seems that high tax regimes are positively embraced by individuals when the revenue raised is put to palpable socially valuable use. It is a sad indictment of the paucity of debate about the economy in the UK that it has for so long been dominated by an intellectually flawed assumption that a free market low-tax economy is the starting point for economic strategy.

The appalling levels to which journalism has descended in much of the national press deserves a thread of its own showcasing the most egregious examples. This piece from the Express demonstrates a prime example: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/david-baddiel-blasts-orgy-of-bad-faith-claiming-meghan-markle-was-mocking-royals-in-doc/ar-AA15eqS8?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=77d501da792a477392ac2332f92fd96c The author (Samantha Leathers) begins by claiming Baddiel, "has blasted Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's new documentary, saying that Meghan's exaggerated curtsy is blatant mockery... David slammed the royal couple, particularly the scene where Meghan explains her first meeting with the late Queen Elizabeth." Then, utterly oblivious to her crass misinterpretation of Baddiel, she actually quotes his tweet saying, "That clip where Meghan demonstrates how she overdid her first curtsey to the Queen - that's what she's doing - showing how *she* overdid it - laughing at herself for getting it wrong." It's absolutely astounding that a journalist writing in a National newspaper, and her editor, are incapable of seeing that Baddiel was criticising the sort of idiots who couldn't see that Markle was ridiculing herself for her laughable curtsey performance (FFS! He even highlighted "she" with stars to avoid any confusion. Hilariously, leather has just published an article pointing out that she is one of those idiots that Baddiel is criticising. You couldn't make it up.

It is absolutely true that this is a public forum, and within the limits of the rules anyone can post whatever they like. However, the putative point of a public discussion is that specific issues can be discussed in a cooperative and constructive fashion. Disagreement is an important part of that process but it is only constructive disagreement when there is mutual agreement to attend to a clear issue for discussion. An intelligent person would accept the centuries-old fundamental principle that debate is only made genuinely possible by interlocuters focussing on clear discrete issues. Indeed, academic advancement is premised in large part upon the permanent activity of dispelling the confusion caused by those who entangle several questions/issues together in a mishmash of obfuscation. It is clear to anyone willing to use their brain that HOL reform can be discussed entirely separately from HOC reform. Indeed that is precisely what Labour has been trying to do. That doesn't preclude in the slightest the case that can be made for HOC reform too, and indeed I'd be stunned if anyone didn't think that was also necessary. Sadly, it is clear (as many others have pointed out throughout several threads) that all too frequently you don't have the slightest interest in actual debate, and simply intend obstinately to sabotage the possibility of any kind of rational constructive discussion about certain particular issues. It's a real shame because abolition of the HOL would be the biggest constitutional change since women got the vote and deserved a genuine debate on this thread about the possibilities such a momentous change could bring for advancing and regenerating democracy in this country. I'm sure many contributors on the site might have enjoyed contributing but have been put off doing so by your pointless aggressive obstinacy in trying to confuse HOL reform with the separate issue of HOC reform. Sadly, I have allowed myself to be drawn into playing your game by becoming irritated by your perpetual lying about what I have actually said. So I'll leave you to indulge in your pathetic little game without further comment.

Oh dear! You really are determined to prove your stubborn and shameless ignorance. I couldn't have been more clear in saying PRECISELY that any replacement for the Lords will have to perform the same revising function of the Lords. I couldn't have been clearer in saying that because the current regional tiers of government (councils, regional parliaments etc) institute actual policy they WON'T perform that role. None of that rules out the formation of a new kind of regional assembly that will perform precisely the role of revising alone. How can you not understand simple English you buffoon?