I am no more in favour of an alliance with New Labour than I am with the Conservatives – though if it delivered PR I would have to think hard.
But why tie ourselves to authoritarian war criminals. The culpability of Miliband in particular in strenuous efforts to cover up UK complicity in torture, should make it impossible for any Liberal to work with him.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/new_labours_com.html#comments
Poor Gary McKinnon provides an important test. The Tories and Lib Dems have said they would halt his extradition under Blair’s vassal state one way extradition treaty with the USA. New Labour apparently remain determined to extradite him – and that means Miliband and Johnson in particular. That should be food for thought for anyone considering New Labour leaders touted as more acceptable to the Lib Dems,
gawdelpus at May 10, 2010 10:26 PM
Staying 4 months until A.N. Other replaces him is playing a constitutional loophole – cunning stunt, that.
Larry –
You are my favourite loser. Please promise that you will keep posting your nonsense on this blog. Please.
Fulano, in what way? The only strong opinion that I’ve voiced on this blog is that 911 was not an inside job. Are you still harping on that?
Larry from St. Louis at May 10, 2010 10:39 PM
Have you seen this:
http://www.captainsherlock.com/pattern_times.html ??
We have all been wrong about Adam Boulton. Apparently he’s not a Tory after all. And here is a new use for Alistair Campbell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZm5cm0ZtL4
Amk,
AV is not necessarily proportional. But can it be so, if boundaries are chosen appropriately? Would it lead to political pressure upon whoever was choosing the boundaries?
STV “becomes more proportional with bigger constituencies” – but is it, too, susceptable to boundary manipulation?
Plenty of ‘unelected PM’s’ in history ScouseBilly including Churchill. If only Robin Cook was alive but there exists others.
Here are my favs for senior positions in a LibLab coalition:
Jeremy Corbyn MP
John McDonnell MP
Kelvin Hopkins MP
Go for it Nick – you know it makes sense to 66% of the electorate.
Craig has started a thread on this subject now.
STV is resistant to gerrymandering. AV is as vulnerable as FPTP, and the results are no more proportional.
Off to the new thread now.
There used to be a system in which people took part in a debate, listened to what was said and then decided how to vote. Party whips were far less powerful. I suppose it’s too late to go back to such a system.
Straw man and Miliband could arrange some overnight rendition flights for the Liberal democrat negotiating team.
Just to make them more pliable you understand.
ScouseBilly, that one’s new to me. Does it blame the Jews for 911?
ScouseBilly, that one’s new to me. Does it blame the Jews for 911?
hey folks why attack Larry?and why should he tell you or me who he really is? this forum is not to threaten someone and he has not said anything so objectionable. I am certainly no supporter of neocon-but even if Larry is then he has every right to his opinion without others asking him to explain. please! Is this liberalism or obnoxious new labnourism?or rublican party line?
Antone can ask anyone who they are. Is there a law against it? Is it liberal for you to raise this and suggest that no-one ever ask anyone who they are? Anyway, who said we’re all liberal?
Larry raised the issue of the use of the word, ‘neocon’ – I asked him to define it, in his terms. He did not respond. Over the past few months, I have invited Larry in very amicable terms to engage in discourse, yet he does not even respond even to these amicable requests.
I would suggest that he is qualitatively different from most other people who blog on this site.
Why is is it unreasonable to ask someone who they are? Larry does not take part in debates, he seems to drop in largely in order to disrupt. He has every right not to respond, and I have every right to continue to ask him to do so, and to ask him to reveal something of his provenance. That, I would suggest, is liberalism.
There are cyber-disruptors who constantly attempt to engineer an association between certain websites and anti-Semitic phrases and argumentation – witness the post earlier in this thread (just prior to your own post) – in order to enhance the likelihood of the website being blacklisted. Craig Murray established a clear position critical of the hard state and its active role in the prosecution of imperial war, as well as the deliberate erosion of due process domestically. This makes Craig Murray’s website a prime target for disruption.
Dear Duncan,
It’s perfectly possible to have a “fairer” proportionally representative electoral system that leads to “worse” results than under the present system.
PR, in itself, doesn’t necessarily, lead to better government or more “democracy.”
For example, it can lead to chaos and a lack of decisive government, at a time when one needs good, solid, government, when struggling with a Great Depression.
If, for example, there are two blocks, with roughly equal electoral support, a third block, perhaps far smaller, holds the balance and therefore has far more power than its electoral support “entitles” it to.
One can study Germany in the 1930’s for an historic example of how dangerous such a system can be.
In contemporary politics there’s the case of Denmark, where the most important party, with about 12% of the votes, the Danish People’s Party, a zenophobic, racist, populist, group, holds the balance of power between left and right.
PR is, on the face of it, a much fairer system, but it does have drawbacks too, which is all I am trying to point out.
Larry from St. Louis at May 11, 2010 1:04 AM
No, Larry it does not blame the jews.
It’s only 30mins – try watching it.
Suhayl writes: “in order to enhance the likelihood of the website being blacklisted.” Now what does that mean?
Well, Suhayl, as it turns out, apparently you are one of those idiots here who thinks that the secret agent men are out to get him. I merely offer a different opinion about 911, suggesting that perhaps it really was 19 Arab Muslims who pulled it off, and you’ve apparently decided that I’ve a government-sponsored agent of destruction.
And then, in a quite weaselly way, you keep wanting to have a pleasant conversation with me.
Suhayl, you don’t begin a friendly conversation by accusing someone of being a government spy. Just one of those rules.
“you don’t begin a friendly conversation by accusing someone of being a government spy”
Or, for that matter, by insisting that “everybody here” is a “loon”, as I’ve seen you do repeatedly. Or, for that matter, by persistently dragging up “911”, that our host has asked be kept to the thread he provided for that purpose. I won’t bother to provide you with the link yet again, given the way you ignore it. It does look like a deliberate attempt at disruption. It can only either incite other people to forget our host’s request or waste his time deleting you, as he threatened (I’m sure he has more important things to do).
However, the conversation hardly “begins” here, does it ?
avatar singh – this isn’t out-of-nowhere, you’ve come in in the middle of a long-running “discussion” (or lack of it).
Hi writerman – granted, there’s no electoral system that will produce good results if a large proportion of the electorate enthusiastically back fascism or stalinism or similar. No electoral system in the world could have prevented Hitler or Mussolini coming to power after the Great Depression (and the attempt by conservatives and big business in Germany to use an alliance with the Nazis to keep socialists and communists out of government).
So from that point of view, yes, PR could make it easier for fascists like the BNP to get elected – it’d also allow socialists, greens (and even maybe a few more independents) to get elected.
Our biggest problem in Britain is that our electoral system bins the votes of the majority of people unless they vote Labour or Conservative.
P.R wouldn’t guarantee more progressive politics – and it’d allow some BNP MPs – but it would be more democratic and at least allow some greens, socialists and independents in. The ‘campaign group’ on the left of the Labour party would likely become a separate party as well – and finally have some influence that way.
Larry from St Louis,
there is not, nor can there be, anything “weaselly” about trying to establish more personal, honest and open communication.
Behave like a person and you’ll be perceived as a person.
Act like a cypher and you’ll be perceived as a cypher.
Now. What do you care about? How do you feel about it?
Or are you Louis Cyphre, my Angel Heart?
Thank you, Richard and Clark.
“Thank you, Richard and Clark”
It’s the difference between having a conversation and standing on a soap-box shouting at people.
“Whichever way your pleasure tends,
You plant ice you’re going to harvest wind”.
That’s brilliant, Richard! Is that from a song, or a poem?
“Is that from a song, or a poem?”
My tony_opmoc streak – have a bit to drink and I revert to the ancient music of my youth. It’s from one of the songs on the Grateful Dead’s “Blues For Allah”. (1974. The final high-water mark of their glory days, imo).
Yes, lovely lyrics, graceful contributions. Suhayl’s never shouted unpleasantly at anyone. I miss dreoilin and am ashamed that Larry managed to call her vicious names without anyone realising it. But then it was apparently on the 9/11 thread, which I didn’t read.