Arts in the UK post-Brexit

[french frank]

They are the majority party with 318 seats following the last election

They are the largest party, not the majority party.

And with their agreement with the DUP, they have a working majority in the house.

More and more, it's appearing to be a working majority to do what the DUP wants.

[Beef Oven!]

In terms of a government mandate, it's generally recognised as being bestowed by the general election vote: a large enough majority of Commons seats to be able to carry through a programme of policies, more or less outlined in the election manifesto.



No, not binding for obvious, practical reasons: no government could carry out every single policy in the manifesto in the time they have available: there will be priorities; and as time goes on intentions can be scuppered by 'events'. A government with a small majority can be a hostage to a handful of rebellious MPs. Manifestos are no more than 'This is what we'd like to do, this is what we aim to do'. Such a document can't 'binding'.

C'mon ff! We're not going to let you get away with that!

"no more than 'This is what we'd like to do, this is what we aim to do"!!!!!!

A manifesto is a pledge. A pledge is a solemn promise or undertaking, not a wish-list!!!

[Bryn]

They are the largest party, not the majority party.



More and more, it's appearing to be a working majority to do what the DUP wants.

With that being more and more in contradiction with the "Democratic" in their name. The NI electorate having voted in favour of remaining in the EU by a significant margin, unlike that of the UK as a whole..

[LMcD]

According to www.parliament.uk the Conservatives now have 315 seats. They have apparently 'pulled' a bill due to be voted on tonight rather than risk a rebellion by some 30 of their own MPs.

[Serial_Apologist]

You may be right, but I do get a sense of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' in your reasoning (I found your argument slightly opaque last time e.g. on Windrush). In one sense it was an enormous task to rebuild Europe, but in another it was an easy task. Determined efforts to rebuild from utter destruction seem bound to show early improvements. Where I agree with you is in highlighting the successful outcome of the general aims and methods. Though I presume we are speaking selectively of 'Europe' since these economic improvements were not seen over the entire 'EU-to-be area'. and it's easy to forget the military dictatorships in several countries up to the 1960s - in Spain, Portugal and Greece - as well as those in the the grip of communism, under both of which regimes 'equality' might well have been the norm. The EC had to forge alliances between a hugely diverse set of histories. Was it even possible? The 'values' of the EC/EU were very much in line with the post-war rebuilders. The more ambitious aims brought mistakes, but not, I think, mistaken aims. You may disagree with that!

What was formed was a huge capitalist alliance, where the tension between capitalism's inherent inequalities and the democratic aims of the EU rocked the entire system. But does the EU make 'things' worse than they would have been (okay, Greece - I have to concede that one; though Ireland was able to pull itself out of poverty)?

It seems to me that as least as important as the mistakes (or 'flaws'!) of the EU have been the disasters of the 2008 crash (no one has suggested that the EU caused it) and simultaneously the migration/refugee crisis which stemmed largely from western attempts to regulate matters in the Middle East - and that, too, wasn't initiated by the EU. The EU has had to cope with the consequences, and it didn't respond by threatening to build walls.

I totally agree!!!

What is missing from aolium's analysis is that, along with the post-WW2 well-meaners who believed in equalising access to educational and cultural opportunity was the creation of the "we've never had it so good" consumer society, without the recognition of its unsustainability due to the endemic nature of capitalism (a) to create inessential needs rather than meet essential ones, while (b) extracting value from only one part of the consumer society, which, with strong historical memory, makes hay while the sun shines given that it knows it can't last for them.

[Lat-Literal]

In terms of a government mandate, it's generally recognised as being bestowed by the general election vote: a large enough majority of Commons seats to be able to carry through a programme of policies, more or less outlined in the election manifesto.



No, not binding for obvious, practical reasons: no government could carry out every single policy in the manifesto in the time they have available: there will be priorities; and as time goes on intentions can be scuppered by 'events'. A government with a small majority can be a hostage to a handful of rebellious MPs. Manifestos are no more than 'This is what we'd like to do, this is what we aim to do'. Such a document can't 'binding'.

That is right in a lot of the principle. But when Cameron's first Government made U-turns on over 20 pledges, notwithstanding the need for compromise on both sides which was most memorable in the public's view in terms of the Lib Dems' change on university tuition fees, many were not quite scuppered by events but rather a new awareness of their natural voters' feelings. An example was the proposed forestry sale which caused an enormous grass roots backlash.

There are, though, "events" and "events". In most cases, manifestos cannot address what would be the policy in terms of any new unforeseen wars because by definition at the time of their publication new wars haven't happened yet. Much the same is true in regard to other international matters such as financial collapse. So, this referendum. It is advisory but being about international policy it sits closer to the latter examples than it does to forestry or even tuition fees.

[Beef Oven!]

They are the largest party, not the majority party.

Changed to read... Their mandate is not necessarily big like in the days of Maggie and Blair, but it is valid. They are the main party with 318 seats following the last election, their nearest rival being Labour, some 56 seats behind. And with their agreement with the DUP, they have a working majority in the house.

Other European countries who have parties with no majorities, that can't go it alone and require collaboration with other parties to govern include Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Norway, Cyprus, Croatia, Serbia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Romania, Estonia, Iceland, Luxembourg, and many more!

Looking at that list, it would seem that Europe, and especially the EU, has a bit of a mandate problem!


[/QUOTE]

[Serial_Apologist]

C'mon ff! We're not going to let you get away with that!

"no more than 'This is what we'd like to do, this is what we aim to do"!!!!!!

A manifesto is a pledge. A pledge is a solemn promise or undertaking, not a wish-list!!!

And there's me thinking you weren't born yesterday!

[french frank]

A manifesto is a pledge. A pledge is a solemn promise or undertaking, not a wish-list!!!

A manifesto is NOT a pledge. You're half Italian - you should know what manifesto means.

[Beef Oven!]

And there's me thinking you weren't born yesterday!

I never said I expected them to follow through on any pledges!

Lib Dems have had a vested interest to pass manifestos off as nothing more than 'things we'd like do, but really can't say for sure that we will' ever since Clegg's University fees scandal

[french frank]

I totally agree!!!

[Bryn]

A manifesto is NOT a pledge. You're half Italian - you should know what manifesto means.

Yeh, but what the Italians call a manifestation, we call a demonstration. Words modify their usage between langiages, not the Beefy did not get it wrong. He did.

[ahinton]

with their agreement with the DUP, they have a working majority in the house

I think that this might rather better read "and subject to the DUP honouring what is widely understood to be an agreement with them at all times, they [the Tories] have a working majority in the house as long as their own MPs don't vote against them".

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, a key question in political theory is "is there really such a thing as a mandate?"

Manifestos, for example, aren't binding.

A mandate, as we understood it, was when your delegate is instructed to vote the way we have determined by majority vote, regardless of changes of viewpoint of circumstance. It was to be used only in the rarest of conditions, and we decided after discussing the principle not to use it unless absolutely necessary, virtually life-or-death, or on a matter of principle such as re-introducing fox hunting, as it would interfere with the delegate's freedom to make up his or her mind on the basis of arguments put to debate reflecting changed circumstances. The dividing line between principle and expediency assumes part of the preceding debate. At the end of the day the delegate would be answerable for their vote at the report-back stage.

[Beef Oven!]

Yeh, but what the Italians call a manifestation, we call a demonstration. Words modify their usage between langiages, not the Beefy did not get it wrong. He did.

I did not get it wrong. And you are right, what manifesto means in Italian is purely the origin of the thing, not its definition.

Here's the Anglo-Italian definition according to Beef Oven!

"A manifesto a is public decalaration, usually in writing, of a political party's aims and objectives, containing a series of pledges and promises, should it get enough votes to form a government."