What no jeremy cobyn thread?

[jakeblu]

re: Labour.
Anyone placing a bet on the first Labour MP to defect to the Lib Dems? Chuka Umunna? Liz Kendall?

They'd be very hypocritical if they did, after how they all castigated the fibdems LibDems recently. Besides, they're all ambitions politicians, can't see any of them joining a sinking ship. Personally I would respect them more if the started their own party, à la the gang of four and the Social Democratic Party, even though that would split the left/centre left in this country and hand the next 20 years to the Tories. No, I personally think that other than a few defections, the moderates in the party will await their opportunity, see how the opinion polls/local elections/by elections go and if unfavourable, then make their move to remove him.

 

[Llamaman]

No. I mean a republic. Certain things about the American systems would appeal - Checks and balances from the separation of powers - but the implementation of those things in a UK government would be very different due to culture and country size.

The USA is a republic! With a dysfunctional political system - I can't see why anyone would want to adopt a similar setup. What you describe as "checks and balances" is rather successfully done here by the House of Lords. The American system just has inertia.

Head of state could be by executive committee rather than a single person (I mentioned presidential system as your original post infered a president taking up the queen's role).

I have not advocated a president and I don't know how you could have infered that from my post, which was deeply critical of the US system.. I replied to your post, which was in turn a reply to dejong ... who wasn't advocating a president either.

David Cameron is PM because he is the leader of his party, he wasn't voted as leader of the country directly.

Technically, no. In practice, yes. Go out on the street and ask 100 people who they voted for. Those that give you a name will - almost exclusively - name the party leader, not their local candidate. Try it.
Millions of people watched the leader's debates - how many of those went to a local hustings? Barely a fraction.

A directly elected executive would have a better mandate and be more representative of the will of the people.

We already have an elected executive committee - the Cabinet.
Electing it separately would have practical difficulties - presumably you would want the best and the brightest on the Executive, but many would not want to run the risk of failure to be elected to the smaller chamber compared to the safer confines of their constituency. To get round this, presumably you'd elect the committee in a separate election, allowing MPs to stand with the assumption that they'd stand down as MPs in they win.
However, staggering the two chambers leads to often having opposing majorities in the two chambers (as often happens in the US), which results in them thwarting each other's attempts to pass bills and leading to inertia and stagnation.
Other countries avoid this by having a greater number of parties, but British politics is dominated by a 2-party system, just like the US, and would suffer the same problems with two elected chambers elected at different times.

It would also, theoretically, allow us to break from party politics - an independent presidential candidate in the UK wouldn't need heavy party funding for a campaign so you'd unlikely get the 2 candidate system of the USA and instead, more independents.

Oh, we're back to a lone President now? (S)he will still need deep pockets - look at Presidential elections around the world (not just the US) - these are major undertakings. The candidates nearly always have a large political movement behind them and financial backing.

The head of state doesn't have to be the head of a party.

No, but it's very rare that (s)he isn't. How many apolitical elected Heads of State can you name?

You talk of the stalemate in the budget (the negative), but the system of separation of powers has done an awful lot of good. There's unfavourable policies in the UK that could've been stopped or ammended for the better, if we were a republic. The stalemate can serve to get the best possible policies from government, rather than having flip flop right/left wing politics from election to election.

They might be "unfavourable" to you, but they are policies of a majority government returned by the electoral mandate from a plebiscite. To seek to frustrate that is to frustrate democracy itself. Why bother holding elections if the system is designed to frustrate any attempts to pass bills? Parliament should not just be a vehicle of establishment to preserve the status quo - it must be capable of (radical) reform or else we might as well close the HoP and just leave government to the Civil Service.

 

[Phil V]

My big problem with a presidential system is that it's worse than an MP* - we'd be asked to elect someone who actually wanted to be the most powerful person in the country

That's definitely a case of anyone who wants the job is automatically unfit to do it.

(I actually prefer the concept of a monarch - go figure).

*The modern concept of an MP being someone who tells us what's good for us rather than representing our views.

 

[decigallen]

The USA is a republic! .

Obviously I'm aware of this. The poster said 'you mean like the american system' and I said, no, a republic, meaning that the US isn't the only republic in the world.

I have not advocated a president and I don't know how you could have infered that from my post, which was deeply critical of the US system.. I replied to your post, which was in turn a reply to dejong ... who wasn't advocating a president either.

You said: "what is so great about having a president instead? Why would that be any different? Still one person." I am merely countering that an executive doesn't have to be one person. And an elected representative, even as a figurehead (which would be my preference), would be more representative of the people than a monarch.

Technically, no. In practice, yes. Go out on the street and ask 100 people who they voted for. Those that give you a name will - almost exclusively - name the party leader, not their local candidate. Try it.

Cameron is de facto leader of the UK technically without having been voted there, and in practice too as his party received only 30 odd percent of the national vote. Even IF all the people in your poll responded to the question with 'David Cameron,' it wouldn't represent a majority of the country. A president would absolutely be voted in for by the people and (dependant on the voting system) would have a clearer mandate.

Other countries avoid this by having a greater number of parties, but British politics is dominated by a 2-party system, just like the US, and would suffer the same problems with two elected chambers elected at different times.

That's no longer entirely true, and certainly not comparable to the USA. A third of the country DIDN'T vote for the 2 parties in 2015 and previous to that we had to have a coalition government.

No, but it's very rare that (s)he isn't. How many apolitical elected Heads of State can you name?

That's an absurd question and twists my words. I said the head of state doesn't have to be HEAD OF THE PARTY, but they will absolutely and totally be political. The very act of becoming a candidate makes you political.

They might be "unfavourable" to you, but they are policies of a majority government returned by the electoral mandate from a plebiscite. To seek to frustrate that is to frustrate democracy itself. Why bother holding elections if the system is designed to frustrate any attempts to pass bills? Parliament should not just be a vehicle of establishment to preserve the status quo - it must be capable of (radical) reform or else we might as well close the HoP and just leave government to the Civil Service.

Because of our electoral system, a party with around a 3rd of the popular vote can make decisions affecting 100% of the population. The mandate exists because of our system and arguably doesn't fully represent the will of the people. 65% of the voters didn't vote Tory. 83% of the UK population played no part in electing the Tories. I'm therefore worried that they have almost unfettered powers for radical reform.

My personal position is for a reform of the Lords, PR elections for all of parliament, and a republic headed by a president that replaces the role of the monarch.

 

[decigallen]

My big problem with a presidential system is that it's worse than an MP* - we'd be asked to elect someone who actually wanted to be the most powerful person in the country

That's definitely a case of anyone who wants the job is automatically unfit to do it.

(I actually prefer the concept of a monarch - go figure).

*The modern concept of an MP being someone who tells us what's good for us rather than representing our views.

As I said above, I'd prefer a president with the role that the queen currently has. It's a massive point of principle for me. Electoral reform is more of an issue in terms of the mechanics of government.

 

[Llamaman]

As Plato noted nearly 2,500 years ago, the best form of government is a benevolent dictator (or philosopher king as he termed it).

I'm looking forward to giving that a try when we find one.

 

[dejongj]

Obviously I'm aware of this. The poster said 'you mean like the american system' and I said, no, a republic, meaning that the US isn't the only republic in the world.



You said: "what is so great about having a president instead? Why would that be any different? Still one person." I am merely countering that an executive doesn't have to be one person. And an elected representative, even as a figurehead (which would be my preference), would be more representative of the people than a monarch.



Cameron is de facto leader of the UK technically without having been voted there, and in practice too as his party received only 30 odd percent of the national vote. Even IF all the people in your poll responded to the question with 'David Cameron,' it wouldn't represent a majority of the country. A president would absolutely be voted in for by the people and (dependant on the voting system) would have a clearer mandate.



That's no longer entirely true, and certainly not comparable to the USA. A third of the country DIDN'T vote for the 2 parties in 2015 and previous to that we had to have a coalition government.



That's an absurd question and twists my words. I said the head of state doesn't have to be HEAD OF THE PARTY, but they will absolutely and totally be political. The very act of becoming a candidate makes you political.



Because of our electoral system, a party with around a 3rd of the popular vote can make decisions affecting 100% of the population. The mandate exists because of our system and arguably doesn't fully represent the will of the people. 65% of the voters didn't vote Tory. 83% of the UK population played no part in electing the Tories. I'm therefore worried that they have almost unfettered powers for radical reform.

My personal position is for a reform of the Lords, PR elections for all of parliament, and a republic headed by a president that replaces the role of the monarch.

Nobody was actively stopping the other 65% of voters from voting, that is their choice. Further more, the Conservative party had a whopping 20% more votes than the next nearest party.

I much prefer the head of state to be apolitical, it is a different role, not to be driven by some personal agenda. A role that requires stability, and a 'circus' that doesn't warrant further electoral spend and all other associated costs in my opinion.

 

[Llamaman]

You said: "what is so great about having a president instead? Why would that be any different? Still one person."

No I didn't. I already told you that you were confusing me with another poster. In the time it took you to misattribute a quote to me, you could have taken the trouble to check.

That's an absurd question and twists my words.

At least they are your words!

I said the head of state doesn't have to be HEAD OF THE PARTY, but they will absolutely and totally be political. The very act of becoming a candidate makes you political.

My bad, I mean to write non-partisan.

Because of our electoral system, a party with around a 3rd of the popular vote can make decisions affecting 100% of the population. The mandate exists because of our system and arguably doesn't fully represent the will of the people. 65% of the voters didn't vote Tory. 83% of the UK population played no part in electing the Tories. I'm therefore worried that they have almost unfettered powers for radical reform.

But that has nothing to do with whether we are a constitutional monarchy or republic! Those are all flaws (although the public apparently see them as strengths) of First Past The Post. We had a referendum on electoral reform and a strong majority reaffirmed their support for a system that allows a minority vote to form a majority government. It's what people wanted - is that not democracy in action?
I fully support scrapping FPTP, but we had a referendum on that and the public said no.

My personal position is for a reform of the Lords, PR elections for all of parliament, and a republic headed by a president that replaces the role of the monarch.

Why have 2 PR-elected chambers? Isn't that just duplicating bureaucracy?

I also don't like the idea of having Presidential veto, since I would rather democracy was determined by the equal votes of the >1,000 members of the two houses, not by one person. That's actually a greater concentration of power in one individual than a constitutional Monarch! You also can't have a PR-president - he's likely to be partisan of one hue or another, so straight away you've made one tier of the executive 100% one party, which makes a mockery of having PR elsewhere.
And if the President doesn't have a veto... what's the blinking point of him? If you just want someone to attend functions, send the PM or the foreign minister. We're already paying them.

 

[Llamaman]

I much prefer the head of state to be apolitical, it is a different role, not to be driven by some personal agenda. A role that requires stability, and a 'circus' that doesn't warrant further electoral spend and all other associated costs in my opinion.

That could be achieved by a non-hereditary and secular head, if the post were purely ceremonial and without constitutional power, and for a longer term than 5 years.
Electoral spend could be reduced by combining the election with other national elections on a separate ballot. And if it's only held every 10/20 years the cost would be negligible compared to the other costs of government.

 

[dejongj]

That could be achieved by a non-hereditary and secular head, if the post were purely ceremonial and without constitutional power, and for a longer term than 5 years.
Electoral spend could be reduced by combining the election with other national elections on a separate ballot. And if it's only held every 10/20 years the cost would be negligible compared to the other costs of government.

It definitely could, but what would the actual benefit be to it? Any change costs a lot of money, what would actually in real terms be gained from it?

 

[Llamaman]

It definitely could, but what would the actual benefit be to it? Any change costs a lot of money, what would actually in real terms be gained from it?

It would be democratic, there would be some accountability, and because it would only incur the costs of one family and one property, be substantially cheaper than the civil list, and security for a extended royal family and running half a dozen Royal Palaces.

 

[dejongj]

It would be democratic, there would be some accountability, and because it would only incur the costs of one family and one property, be substantially cheaper than the civil list, and security for a extended royal family and running half a dozen Royal Palaces.

So the benefits will just be cost then? And the provision of a new home, and office, and office staff, etc. But it wouldn't be income generating.

I'm not certain that there is anything to actually gain from it other than a few people being happy with removing hereditary rights. Those same people will be going after anyone else's legacy as well. To me it is the road to full state ownership of everything. I really can't see any benefits to it at all.

 

[Llamaman]

So the benefits will just be cost then?

Cost was actually my least concern and I actually wouldn't mind if it cost a bit more. I think having a national representative actually chosen by the people, not because her great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather had a decent/lucky archer on his team would be nice.
Besides, William never actually conquered the City of London, so I dispute Elizabeth's II right to represent me! [/sedition]

And the provision of a new home, and office, and office staff, etc. But it wouldn't be income generating.

All of which the Monarchy have several times over (Buckingham Palace is a giant office). And they don't (directly) generate much income either. All their indirect revenue generation (boosting international trade) could be performed by the replacement.
The current costs of upkeeping the Royal Palaces for residence could be diverted to maintaining them for the public to enjoy.Opening up the Royal Palaces may even generate additional income, mitigating the cost to the taxpayer.

I'm not certain that there is anything to actually gain from it other than a few people being happy with removing hereditary rights. Those same people will be going after anyone else's legacy as well.

Hereditary property = OK. Hereditary right to govern and live at the forcible expense of others, not so much.

To me it is the road to full state ownership of everything.

Republicanism = communism? That's a new one!

 

[dejongj]

lol glad it is a new one for you, unfortunately there are a few on here would think it is unfair that I can provide an advantage to my children by being smart and prudent and would like to see it go into state ownership for redistribution....

I can live without the hereditary right to govern a state. I'm not sure whether it would be more beneficial to have an elected person in place, I cannot possible see any benefit to that.

 

[Llamaman]

lol glad it is a new one for you, unfortunately there are a few on here would think it is unfair that I can provide an advantage to my children by being smart and prudent and would like to see it go into state ownership for redistribution....

That's a whole different argument though. Hereditary rule and hereditary property are not the same (the latter is a form of freedom, the former the complete opposite). To conflate them as logical equals is hyperbole (quite out of character for you!)

 

[Mr Bump]

Well @Llamaman I guess my blocked filter is working overtime I have you 6 posts in a row

 

[Llamaman]

Ah, I was just having a chat with @dejongj . Can't imagine why you would have blocked him - he's about the least offensive and hysterical poster in OOF.

 

[Phil V]

...


Hereditary property = OK. Hereditary right to govern and live at the forcible expense of others, not so much.


..!

Interestingly in the 19th Century the Royal estate was fairly small and not in good order. Prince Albert was independantly wealthy and made some really astute property purchases, much of the current Royal Estate extends from this period. So if we were to turn the family onto private citizens, not much of the property would rightfully return to the state.

 

[jakeblu]

So the benefits will just be cost then? And the provision of a new home, and office, and office staff, etc. But it wouldn't be income generating.

Personally I thought improved democracy was the biggest benefit, cost is merely secondary .

 

[Llamaman]

Interestingly in the 19th Century the Royal estate was fairly small and not in good order.

That's because George III signed most of the Crown Estate over in 1760 to the government in exchange for the civil list.

Prince Albert was independantly wealthy and made some really astute property purchases, much of the current Royal Estate extends from this period. So if we were to turn the family onto private citizens, not much of the property would rightfully return to the state.

That's the first time I've heard that. I know there are a few palaces/estates still privately owned by the Windsors (principally Balmoral and Sandringham) but wasn't aware there was a wider portfolio. Do you have a source?

 

[dejongj]

That's a whole different argument though. Hereditary rule and hereditary property are not the same (the latter is a form of freedom, the former the complete opposite). To conflate them as logical equals is hyperbole (quite out of character for you!)

I know there aren't the same, and agree they should be discussed separately. Unfortunately often they are not, but I agree and accept responsibility of bringing them together. In this context, I will refrain from doing that until such time that part is being discussed.

Then again, just thinking a bit more about this, are they that far apart. I mean if you own land, property, estates, legal entities, you 'rule' over those. Sure not as a monarch of a country but in principle and reality it is not that far apart.

Interestingly in the 19th Century the Royal estate was fairly small and not in good order. Prince Albert was independantly wealthy and made some really astute property purchases, much of the current Royal Estate extends from this period. So if we were to turn the family onto private citizens, not much of the property would rightfully return to the state.

I didn't know that but I did expect that not much is state owned and provisioned.

Personally I thought improved democracy was the biggest benefit, cost is merely secondary .

I'm most definitely in favour of democracy, I just find it hard to find an angle in which it truly would benefit in this aspect. I can't help but feel that if we go down that road we may as well do away with the whole of the role just have a PM. What would the benefit be of another elected person? How would that contribute to democracy and the democratic process? As much questions out loud to myself as to you

 

[Llamaman]

I can't help but feel that if we go down that road we may as well do away with the whole of the role just have a PM. What would the benefit be of another elected person? How would that contribute to democracy and the democratic process? As much questions out loud to myself as to you

If it's a political appointment I agree there's no point to it and the PM suffices.
However, supporters of the Monarchy often point to the benefits being longevity, apolitical/non-partisan etc which obviously a PM cannot offer. A purely symbolic head of state could then serve some purpose as a non-hereditary alternative to a Monarch.

 

[Llamaman]

I didn't know that but I did expect that not much is state owned and provisioned.

I've been doing some research on this and cannot find anything to support Phil's claim. Balmoral was purchased by Albert, and Sandringham was purchased after his death (but it was his idea to purchase a house so he can claim a little credit even though the house wasn't chosen before his demise), There's a couple of other residences on the estates of Balmoral and Sandringham, and Gatcombe Park (owned by the Wessexes) but that's about it. The rest is owned by the Crown Estate, which George III signed over to the government 250 years ago in exchange for the state picking up his debts. They're not getting those back.
Maybe there's a load of property they own that aren't residences, but a bit of Googling reveals nothing.
So, whilst they are sitting on a lot of wealth, it is apparently mainly in two estates - not a huge property empire like the Duke of Westminster.

 

[dejongj]

If it's a political appointment I agree there's no point to it and the PM suffices.
However, supporters of the Monarchy often point to the benefits being longevity, apolitical/non-partisan etc which obviously a PM cannot offer. A purely symbolic head of state could then serve some purpose as a non-hereditary alternative to a Monarch.

I'm not ruling that out in my opinion, just trying to imagine what the practical workings and benefits could be of that? And who will determine that role? Will it be residents? Will it be citizens? Will it be commonwealth? Actually what would happen to the common wealth? Would it have to be a common decision?

I can't help but think that unless there is a better reason we have something better to do than coordinate this effort across so many countries. But then again that shouldn't be a reason why not to do something....

Anyway this thread is about Jeremy Corbyn isn't it I would have thought he has more urgent matters to be concerned about.

 

[Llamaman]

I'm not ruling that out in my opinion, just trying to imagine what the practical workings and benefits could be of that?

No practical benefits, other than making Britain a proper modern democratic state, free from the Medieval era. One could say the same thing of scrapping male primogeniture - no obvious practical benefit, but it was the right thing to do to remove a historical anachronism that has no place in the modern world.

And who will determine that role? Will it be residents? Will it be citizens? Will it be commonwealth?

To abolish the British monarchy would need to be a democratic decision by the people of Britain. As the role would be as representative of the UK, in my mind it would be open to all citizens of the UK, not just those born here. Fancy applying?

Actually what would happen to the common wealth? Would it have to be a common decision?

I think it should be a decision for the UK to make and applicable only to the UK. The rest of the Commonwealth can continue to recognize her and her heirs as sovereign if they wish. I wouldn't want to impose our decision on them.

I can't help but think that unless there is a better reason we have something better to do than coordinate this effort across so many countries. But then again that shouldn't be a reason why not to do something....

Another good reason for making it applicable to the UK only. Other countries can sort out their own constitutional process to abolish/preserve/whatever.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

I have just read that Corbyn is a pigeon sympathiser. I mean I was OK with him referring to Hezbollah as my friends, but pigeons, really?

Thank god to the Daily Mail for bringing such insights to its headlines.

 

[Llamaman]

Thank god their picture editor could find a picture of a pigeon and a graphic of a asteroid. Without that, I couldn't have followed the non-story.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

I've been doing some research on this and cannot find anything to support Phil's claim. Balmoral was purchased by Albert, and Sandringham was purchased after his death (but it was his idea to purchase a house so he can claim a little credit even though the house wasn't chosen before his demise), There's a couple of other residences on the estates of Balmoral and Sandringham, and Gatcombe Park (owned by the Wessexes) but that's about it. The rest is owned by the Crown Estate, which George III signed over to the government 250 years ago in exchange for the state picking up his debts. They're not getting those back.
Maybe there's a load of property they own that aren't residences, but a bit of Googling reveals nothing.
So, whilst they are sitting on a lot of wealth, it is apparently mainly in two estates - not a huge property empire like the Duke of Westminster.

Really, I put this into Google and got this back in a nano second

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_royal_residences

 

[cambsno]

It would be democratic, there would be some accountability, and because it would only incur the costs of one family and one property, be substantially cheaper than the civil list, and security for a extended royal family and running half a dozen Royal Palaces.

What about that fact that millions of people like and enjoy the royal family and monarchy? The majority of the country are in favour so why change it?

 

[kendo1]

What about that fact that millions of people like and enjoy the royal family and monarchy? The majority of the country are in favour so why change it?

That doesn't bother them, much like Sturgeon ignoring the decision of the Scots...

 

[Phil V]

That doesn't bother them, much like Sturgeon ignoring the decision of the Scots...

In what way has she ignored the decision? AFAIK Scotland is still not independent. Or have I missed something.

 

[Dave *]

Really, I put this into Google and got this back in a nano second

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_royal_residences

That page seems to corroborate what @Llamaman has said.

This is a list of residences occupied by the British Royal Family, noting the seasons of the year they are traditionally occupied. Members of the Royal Family inhabit their range of residences across the United Kingdom. Some are royal palaces, owned by the Crown and held in trust by the monarch; others are privately owned. Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House have been inherited as private property for several generations.

Paraphrased, seems to say:
"A list of residences occupied by them, and they own 2 of them".

And to add, Anne also owns her own house, Gatcombe Park. So, Balmoral, Sandringham and Anne's house.

 

[kendo1]

In what way has she ignored the decision? AFAIK Scotland is still not independent. Or have I missed something.

She wants another referendum, and then probably another till she gets her way.
Have you not been watching the news?

 

[dejongj]

In what way has she ignored the decision? AFAIK Scotland is still not independent. Or have I missed something.

I would guess that the majority voted no only last year, and she is hinting at that there should be many referendums, basically until they've got a yes At least Alex had the decency to say that not for a generation it should happen again...

Now despite me, yet again ..., not agreeing with her politics, I do think that she would have been a superb labour leader...

 

[Phil V]

She wants another referendum, and then probably another till she gets her way.
Have you not been watching the news?

Sorry I was out booking a wedding, surely her job as leader of the SNP is to lobby for independence, not that I agree, just that's surely her purpose in life.

 

[kendo1]

Sorry I was out booking a wedding, surely her job as leader of the SNP is to lobby for independence, not that I agree, just that's surely her purpose in life.

Glad to hear it
I've had a couple of surveys to do too.

How many times does she need to do it though?
I suspect she would not consider a referendum to rejoin the UK if she ever did get her way.

 

[Llamaman]

Really, I put this into Google and got this back in a nano second
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_royal_residences

And if you'd read it you'd have seen that most of them are "Crown Estate" - i.e. not privately owned by the royal family.

 

[Phil V]

Glad to hear it
I've had a couple of surveys to do too.

How many times does she need to do it though?
I suspect she would not consider a referendum to rejoin the UK if she ever did get her way.

Of course she wouldn't, her goal being 'independence', but what if following independence there was a new party with a majority in their parliament; maybe they'd decide to hold a new referendum?

 

[Blank_Canvas]

I wonder what Corbyn's next u-turn will be - 'accepting that we need to keep Trident as a nuclear deterrent' perhaps ?

 

[dejongj]

I wonder what Corbyn's next u-turn will be - 'accepting that we need to keep Trident as a nuclear deterrent' perhaps ?

Once he will get access to the privy council and truly understand the risks. They all change once they get access to the facts. Most of the public would as well.