J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,658
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 2, 2021 17:39:55 GMT
I have a question for the forum (prompted by discussion on another thread to the effect that parties' support for FPTP or PR is based on self-interest). I have heard it said that as the Labour Party struggled to establish itself in British politics it advocated PR, but on becoming one of the 'big two' it embraced FPTP instead; and that conversely the Liberals abandoned FPTP in favour of PR as they became a relatively minor party. In particular, I have been told that the two parties' change of heart on the subject fell in the exact same year, 1927. If true, this is pleasingly neat (besides offering strong support for the self-interest argument). But is it true, or is it just a political urban myth I've picked up from somewhere? The Liberal Party advocated PR when they were still one of the Big Two, and implemented it for Irish elections before Ireland left the union. In the 1918 electoral reform bill there was ping-pong between the Commons who wanted STV and the Lords who wanted AV, and it was only settled by abandoning voting reform entirely. When the British Empire set up assemblies in overseas colonies they very often set them up using STV.
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 3, 2021 20:52:29 GMT
I have long supposed that governments appoint ministers for three completely separate reasons. 1. To find a job for a person they owe a favour to or need the support of or fear might stab them.
2. To Grandstand a position, policy initiative or fashionable public desire. 3. For historic or traditional reasons. I would contend that 10 ministers of consummate competence could do all the real political work necessary in government and each have considerable free time as well. And that 10 ministries may well be too many in any case. That civil servants, policy drafters, lawyers and bill drafters do most of the real work and should probably do even more of it. Ministers are there to take decisions and to give broad instructions, to oversee, to control and to manage. It should be done a lot better and it should also take up far less time. Most managers and I imagine most ministers, do far to much detailed work and process work; far too little deep water thinking and planning; and are to involved in detail because they do not know how to delegate and don't like doing it. Patronage has always been an important tool of government. It would be of great advantage if there was a way of exercising it (which is necessary so the government can get things done) without handing over power (which I've always thought was why in principle the honours system is a Good Thing.) PS while agreeing with your broad thrust, the other reason managers don't delegate is because there is often a shortage of people able, willing, and of the correct rank, to be delegated to. It helps if the organisation is set up on the basis that staff should exercise initiative and from the word go everyone expects and hopes to be given delegated power, and those in authority are expected to delegate, but if those attitudes aren't part of the overall ethos and the staff full of people imbued with the ethos it's bloody hard for any manager to work that way. I don't think regular re-shuffles help ministers either; I imagine it's hard to do that thinking and planning when shifting from one department to another every couple of years, with little control over which department you get. Far easier to throw yourself into the process work and detail, if only to get the background you need to do that thinking. That's the Peter Principle - "The Peter Principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their "level of incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principleThat is everyone is incompetent in their job - which rather explains Boris!
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jun 3, 2021 21:17:11 GMT
Patronage has always been an important tool of government. It would be of great advantage if there was a way of exercising it (which is necessary so the government can get things done) without handing over power (which I've always thought was why in principle the honours system is a Good Thing.) PS while agreeing with your broad thrust, the other reason managers don't delegate is because there is often a shortage of people able, willing, and of the correct rank, to be delegated to. It helps if the organisation is set up on the basis that staff should exercise initiative and from the word go everyone expects and hopes to be given delegated power, and those in authority are expected to delegate, but if those attitudes aren't part of the overall ethos and the staff full of people imbued with the ethos it's bloody hard for any manager to work that way. I don't think regular re-shuffles help ministers either; I imagine it's hard to do that thinking and planning when shifting from one department to another every couple of years, with little control over which department you get. Far easier to throw yourself into the process work and detail, if only to get the background you need to do that thinking. That's the Peter Principle - "The Peter Principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their "level of incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principleThat is everyone is incompetent in their job - which rather explains Boris! No, it's a different point. Lots of people are perfectly competent to carry out instructions or established procedures. So long as the job doesn't require them to use initiative, they're fine. The trouble I'm talking about is if a manager wants to give autonomy to ranks that previously did not have it. Some of them will welcome it and thrive, plenty of others won't - it's not that they've been promoted beyond their competence, it's that the job has now changed.
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 3, 2021 21:52:06 GMT
That's the Peter Principle - "The Peter Principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their "level of incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principleThat is everyone is incompetent in their job - which rather explains Boris! No, it's a different point.Lots of people are perfectly competent to carry out instructions or established procedures. So long as the job doesn't require them to use initiative, they're fine. The trouble I'm talking about is if a manager wants to give autonomy to ranks that previously did not have it. Some of them will welcome it and thrive, plenty of others won't - it's not that they've been promoted beyond their competence, it's that the job has now changed. Probably - but that doesn't allow me to attack Johnson! And of course people are still incompetent until they reach their point of incompetence. I think the issue is a lot of delegation is not giving precise instruction - but a general instruction - the regional manager of a supermarket saying to a the store manager and the managing director saying to their regional managers manage your store managers. Often it's also about the regional managers have reached their incompetence level and as you say their job has no job. It also pertains to politicians in that the get elected PM on a skill set of campaigning and they now have to run Government - a complete different skillset. It's why no politician should be allowed anywhere near running government. Not least because it involves ignoring the Daily Mail whereas being a successful candidate is the exact opposite. Again entrepreneurs can be brilliant at building a business and lousy at running a mature business. So never believe your own hype and remember elections are pure fiction. The founders of Googles said the only thing that can increase your productivity 100% is hiring someone. And always hire someone brighter than you! They did brilliantly hiring Eric Schidmt has CEO of Google and realising that being CEO was not their strength and all this is *partly* why Google has been such a success!
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,242
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Jun 4, 2021 1:24:35 GMT
Prof. Wilson - yes, the Wilson, who became later US-president - had compared the AngloSaxon administrations by incapable politicians to that of Prussia (with unelected CivilServants depending as in AustriaHungary more on the emperor) and admitted the latter to be far more "efficient". Nonetheless he didn't advice a TakeOver because it would only create inhumanistic and idiotic specialists.
As usual: Atlantic liberalism versus asiatic socialism.
"The capitalistic society accumulated wealth as they merged the ignorance of a sly entrepreneur, who leads, with the knowledge of a foolish technician, who executes. Socialism seeks to create wealth by entrusting the leadership to the technician." (GOMEZ DAVILA)
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Jun 4, 2021 10:43:59 GMT
Prof. Wilson - yes, the Wilson, who became later US-president - had compared the AngloSaxon administrations by incapable politicians to that of Prussia (with unelected CivilServants depending as in AustriaHungary more on the emperor) and admitted the latter to be far more "efficient". Nonetheless he didn't advice a TakeOver because it would only create inhumanistic and idiotic specialists. As usual: Atlantic liberalism versus asiatic socialism. "The capitalistic society accumulated wealth as they merged the ignorance of a sly entrepreneur, who leads, with the knowledge of a foolish technician, who executes. Socialism seeks to create wealth by entrusting the leadership to the technician." (GOMEZ DAVILA) Pardon me for asking, but I am wondering how the administrations of either Prussia or Austria-Hungary in the early 20th century could be considered Asiatic or even strongly Asiatic-influenced - unless, in the case of Austria-Hungary, one agrees with Metternich's reported view that Asia begins at the Landstrasse. From all that I can see, the administrative traditions of both empires seem to have been firmly based on the previous thousand years of Germanic history, with the major external influences since before the Thirty Years War coming from the France of Louis XIV and, more recently Napoleon. Also, I am currently drawing a blank when I try to think of any pre-20th century Asiatic society or body of thought that might reasonably be described as socialist.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,242
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Jun 4, 2021 11:04:57 GMT
Prof. Wilson - yes, the Wilson, who became later US-president - had compared the AngloSaxon administrations by incapable politicians to that of Prussia (with unelected CivilServants depending as in AustriaHungary more on the emperor) and admitted the latter to be far more "efficient". Nonetheless he didn't advice a TakeOver because it would only create inhumanistic and idiotic specialists. As usual: Atlantic liberalism versus asiatic socialism. "The capitalistic society accumulated wealth as they merged the ignorance of a sly entrepreneur, who leads, with the knowledge of a foolish technician, who executes. Socialism seeks to create wealth by entrusting the leadership to the technician." (GOMEZ DAVILA) Pardon me for asking, but I am wondering how the administrations of either Prussia or Austria-Hungary in the early 20th century could be considered Asiatic or even strongly Asiatic-influenced - unless, in the case of Austria-Hungary, one agrees with Metternich's reported view that Asia begins at the Landstrasse. From all that I can see, the administrative traditions of both empires seem to have been firmly based on the previous thousand years of Germanic history, with the major external influences since before the Thirty Years War coming from the France of Louis XIV and, more recently Napoleon. Also, I am currently drawing a blank when I try to think of any pre-20th century Asiatic society or body of thought that might reasonably be described as socialist. Weren't "we" labelled by "You" as Huns? More seriously: Also v.Bismarck meant, that only the Slavic SubStrate and its passivism enabled the strong Prussian state. Which was protosocialistic (cf. SPENGLER's "Prussian Socialism"): Bakers or other crucial professions, for example, were already in the XVIIth forced by the state to resettle to other parts of Prussia, whenever there was a shortage of them. The rise of eastern Germany (LuxemBurger in the E, HabsBurger in the SE, HohenZoller in the NE) instead of the wealthier Rhine-areas happened, because Baroque was about replacing medieval feudalism by modern absolutism. Similarily communism was nothing new to China, especially not for its first emperor.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,607
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 4, 2021 11:19:46 GMT
I think the "Hun" epithet originated with the helmets German soldiers sometimes wore?
Though there was a definite belief in those days that they were inherently less "civilised" because they had never accepted Rome's tender embrace.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 4, 2021 11:43:41 GMT
That's the Peter Principle - "The Peter Principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their "level of incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principleThat is everyone is incompetent in their job - which rather explains Boris! No, it's a different point. Lots of people are perfectly competent to carry out instructions or established procedures. So long as the job doesn't require them to use initiative, they're fine. The trouble I'm talking about is if a manager wants to give autonomy to ranks that previously did not have it. Some of them will welcome it and thrive, plenty of others won't - it's not that they've been promoted beyond their competence, it's that the job has now changed. Agree with Adam here. I had a very competent deputy who absolutely hated it when I went on holiday as he didn’t want or like the responsibility of having to take decisions. Although he performed capably enough for the short period concerned. When I left he did not, as you might expect, apply for the job.
|
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by Toylyyev on Jun 5, 2021 18:13:48 GMT
I think the "Hun" epithet originated with the helmets German soldiers sometimes wore? Though there was a definite belief in those days that they were inherently less "civilised" because they had never accepted Rome's tender embrace_(my underscore). It is a heck of a lot more complicated.. The Saxons too did agree to a Foedus between 450 and 469 in the Roman Province of Britain. www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artgue/guestpat.htm
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 5, 2021 18:24:35 GMT
I think the "Hun" epithet originated with the helmets German soldiers sometimes wore? Though there was a definite belief in those days that they were inherently less "civilised" because they had never accepted Rome's tender embrace. the Hun epithet was coined by the Idiot-in-Chief Wilhelm II himself, exhorting the German expedionary corps to China (during the Boxer Rising) to make themselves as unforgettable as the Huns. An utterly insane thing to say, and some people in Germany and further west took mild umbrage at the time. It was brought up again in Britain (Kipling had a role in that I believe) in the jingoist mood of 1914 and stuck.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 5, 2021 18:40:40 GMT
Prof. Wilson - yes, the Wilson, who became later US-president - had compared the AngloSaxon administrations by incapable politicians to that of Prussia (with unelected CivilServants depending as in AustriaHungary more on the emperor) and admitted the latter to be far more "efficient". Nonetheless he didn't advice a TakeOver because it would only create inhumanistic and idiotic specialists. As usual: Atlantic liberalism versus asiatic socialism. "The capitalistic society accumulated wealth as they merged the ignorance of a sly entrepreneur, who leads, with the knowledge of a foolish technician, who executes. Socialism seeks to create wealth by entrusting the leadership to the technician." (GOMEZ DAVILA) Pardon me for asking, but I am wondering how the administrations of either Prussia or Austria-Hungary in the early 20th century could be considered Asiatic or even strongly Asiatic-influenced - unless, in the case of Austria-Hungary, one agrees with Metternich's reported view that Asia begins at the Landstrasse. From all that I can see, the administrative traditions of both empires seem to have been firmly based on the previous thousand years of Germanic history, with the major external influences since before the Thirty Years War coming from the France of Louis XIV and, more recently Napoleon. Also, I am currently drawing a blank when I try to think of any pre-20th century Asiatic society or body of thought that might reasonably be described as socialist. "Asia" (ie Eastern Europe) begins at the Elbe-Saale line (and probably on the Enns in Austria - Metternich was very mistaken (and selfserving) when he considered the Innere Stadt's culture as the same as France's. What the Prussian and Austrian elite and state are is a European-derived settler society keeping native serfs (even though genetically it was fairly heavily descended from coopted indigenous elites, actually). Inherently nasty people, that. Britain and France were just as capable of producing them. But at least you weren't ever conquered by the Boers or the CSA, which is an exaggerated but not really wrong image of what Prussia's conquest of much of Western Germany felt like. Our last ruling mayor chose suicide.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 10, 2021 11:22:38 GMT
Are there any sources to see full regional list candidacies in previous Scottish Parliament elections for the main parties? Tried a lot of googling but seems awkward to find any from the elections before 2016. Constituency candidates are easy enough to look at through wiki etc.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,242
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Jun 10, 2021 20:45:32 GMT
Pardon me for asking, but I am wondering how the administrations of either Prussia or Austria-Hungary in the early 20th century could be considered Asiatic or even strongly Asiatic-influenced - unless, in the case of Austria-Hungary, one agrees with Metternich's reported view that Asia begins at the Landstrasse. From all that I can see, the administrative traditions of both empires seem to have been firmly based on the previous thousand years of Germanic history, with the major external influences since before the Thirty Years War coming from the France of Louis XIV and, more recently Napoleon. Also, I am currently drawing a blank when I try to think of any pre-20th century Asiatic society or body of thought that might reasonably be described as socialist. "Asia" (ie Eastern Europe) begins at the Elbe-Saale line (and probably on the Enns in Austria - Metternich was very mistaken (and selfserving) when he considered the Innere Stadt's culture as the same as France's. What the Prussian and Austrian elite and state are is a European-derived settler society keeping native serfs (even though genetically it was fairly heavily descended from coopted indigenous elites, actually). Inherently nasty people, that. Britain and France were just as capable of producing them. But at least you weren't ever conquered by the Boers or the CSA, which is an exaggerated but not really wrong image of what Prussia's conquest of much of Western Germany felt like. Our last ruling mayor chose suicide. W.HELLPACH concluded already between the WorldWars, that the line Lübeck-Trieste is the main one between east and west. EastGermany & Austria proper were clearly colonialized. But the Slavs being made brutally slaves by the Germans is rather fantasy of the XIXth. Also caused by the latter's inevitable relience on toponyms (which are indeed strongly Slavic). Present-day historians like H.WOLFRAM assume a very thin Slavic settlement (or rather no settlement at all, with many being shepherds) and a peaceful assimilation. Backed by both - the old RaceScience, which had to be satisfied with the PhenoTyp and the new science of genetics with its very preliminary findings -, which have found a surprisingly small Slavic ImPact on the GenePool of Germans/Austrians.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,854
|
Post by jamie on Jun 17, 2021 17:35:06 GMT
How did Labour used to be able to win the old Carmarthen constituency? Eye-balling it on Wikipedia, it seems a largely rural agricultural seat that shouldn't have been voting Labour in years as bad as 1979. Compared to its main successor, it did include Carmarthen, the rural south west and Kidwelly, but even assuming they were Labour leaning that should be more than outweighed by the fact it excluded a good chunk of the then heavily Labour Amman Valley (unless Wikipedia is wrong, wouldn't be the first time). Any idea Sibboleth or anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by froome on Jun 17, 2021 21:47:47 GMT
How did Labour used to be able to win the old Carmarthen constituency? Eye-balling it on Wikipedia, it seems a largely rural agricultural seat that shouldn't have been voting Labour in years as bad as 1979. Compared to its main successor, it did include Carmarthen, the rural south west and Kidwelly, but even assuming they were Labour leaning that should be more than outweighed by the fact it excluded a good chunk of the then heavily Labour Amman Valley (unless Wikipedia is wrong, wouldn't be the first time). Any idea Sibboleth or anyone else? The rural Welsh speaking population in many west Wales villages was strongly Labour until Plaid Cymru became a realistic alternative for them.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 17, 2021 22:11:30 GMT
How did Labour used to be able to win the old Carmarthen constituency? Eye-balling it on Wikipedia, it seems a largely rural agricultural seat that shouldn't have been voting Labour in years as bad as 1979. Compared to its main successor, it did include Carmarthen, the rural south west and Kidwelly, but even assuming they were Labour leaning that should be more than outweighed by the fact it excluded a good chunk of the then heavily Labour Amman Valley (unless Wikipedia is wrong, wouldn't be the first time). Any idea Sibboleth or anyone else? The rural Welsh speaking population in many west Wales villages was strongly Labour until Plaid Cymru became a realistic alternative for them. Post-war it was Liberal until the 1957(?) by-election, and was generally a Lib/Lab straight fight - no Conservative till 1959. At the by-election the Labour candidate was one Megan Lloyd George. Which will have swung a good few Liberals. Conservatism would be a creed for English-speaking Anglicans*, of which there wouldn't have been many in those days. * And drunkards.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 18, 2021 3:26:15 GMT
How did Labour used to be able to win the old Carmarthen constituency? Eye-balling it on Wikipedia, it seems a largely rural agricultural seat that shouldn't have been voting Labour in years as bad as 1979. Compared to its main successor, it did include Carmarthen, the rural south west and Kidwelly, but even assuming they were Labour leaning that should be more than outweighed by the fact it excluded a good chunk of the then heavily Labour Amman Valley (unless Wikipedia is wrong, wouldn't be the first time). Any idea Sibboleth or anyone else? The rural Welsh speaking population in many west Wales villages was strongly Labour until Plaid Cymru became a realistic alternative for them. and from the 60s on this was a PC-Labour fight and the Con vote, with no local tradition, would have remained somewhat tactically depressed.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,031
|
Post by ilerda on Jun 18, 2021 13:02:42 GMT
I think it's the case that you're not allowed to run in more than one constituency at a general election, but is there a similar rule for by-elections?
Are you allowed to run in simultaneous by-elections? What if they are being held on different days, but the official campaign periods overlap? And if so what happens if you're elected in one by-election but still a candidate in a different one?
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 18, 2021 15:28:55 GMT
Electoral Administration Act 2006
22 Candidate not to stand in more than one constituency In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules), in rule 8(3) (candidate's consent to nomination), after paragraph (b) insert— “(c)shall state that he is not a candidate at an election for any other constituency the poll for which is to be held on the same day as that for the election to which the consent relates,”.
So I think you could stand in two by-elections on different days, even if the nominations for the second one close before the first polling day, but not in two by-elections on the same day.
|
|