446 comments posted · 2 followers · following 31

6 hours ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Adam Holloway: This af... · 0 replies · +1 points

There may have been a comment above stating what seems to me is the obvious - your first paragraph - but if there was, I must have missed it. So congratulations for that and for making an "obvious" suggestion for how to deal with the problems pointed out in your first paragraph: so obvious that if I have ever thought along those lines (which I might have) I have since forgotten so the "obvious" solution was effectively new to me. I suppose it might be argued that there is a benefit to having ministers chosen from those elected to Parliament (I'm not convinced there is, but - afterthought - Donald Trump's government?) and that ministers should be liable to questions in Parliament, but there ought to be ways round that one: there have been senior ministers who were in the Lords, not the Commons - Lord Carrington in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet?

6 hours ago @ http://www.conservativ... - State-funded Muslim sc... · 0 replies · +1 points

As someone with a mathematics degree (as opposed to being a mathematician: I am on record on an internet podcast as describing myself as a failed mathematician!), I think GodfreyPR's "equation" is not obviously wholly wrong. (Off-topic: out of genuine curiosity, what is - or was? - your mathematics speciality/ies?)

7 hours ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Momentum marches on - ... · 0 replies · +1 points

For what it's worth, I thought your original post was quite clear, and that IanQ2 was misunderstanding what you were saying, which was setting out the two logical possibilities if one doesn't want a small part of a constituency to effectively mandate the MP. I think that those posters on ConservativeHome who consider that MPs shouldn't revolt (or does that only apply to MPs who want to reduce the effect of leaving the EU?) should be very careful what they wish for: next time the Conservative & Unionist Party might not be able to scrape a majority even with the help of the DUP, and a dangerous precedent may have been set.

2 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Binita Mehta-Parmar: W... · 1 reply · +1 points

"I do not trust myself nor would I vote for myself. But that wouldn't stop me from encouraging others to vote for me. QED - I am untrustworthy." - That sounds suspiciously like Russell's paradox in a different setting.

Also, perhaps - in different ways? - we can both say "Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho."?

3 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Binita Mehta-Parmar: W... · 3 replies · +1 points

"I refuse to trust anyone who's ever failed to return a library book on time" - I plead guilty as charged, although in my defence the books in question were "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin and a collection of articles by Karl Popper, not "Fifty Shades of Grey"!

3 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Binita Mehta-Parmar: W... · 1 reply · +1 points

To be fair, George Wallace did publicly - apparently sincerely? (and definitely rather belatedly) - change his mind on segregation: ... In the late 1970s, Wallace announced that he was a born-again Christian and apologized to black civil rights leaders for his past actions as a segregationist. He said that while he had once sought power and glory, he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness. In 1979, Wallace said of his stand in the schoolhouse door: "I was wrong. Those days are over, and they ought to be over." He publicly asked for forgiveness from African Americans. ...

3 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Binita Mehta-Parmar: W... · 3 replies · +1 points

True, and you're by no means the first to make that observation. But - to be blunt, and not meaning to be rude - so what? Parties change their positions, and over 100 years and more they can become quite different. (Indeed, from past articles on ConservativeHome I seem to recall many commentators praising the - somewhat alleged from my perspective - Conservative Party's success at adapting its views to retain power.)

I mean no slur on the current Republican Party to suggest that its politics are overall closer - albeit not very close - to those of the 1950s and 1960s Southern Democrats than are those of the current Democratic Party. [edit] Also I think it's a bit of a stretch to imply that the Southern Democrats were on the left rather than the right of USA politics.

While in 1865 the Republicans were anti-slavery, and the Southern Democrats weren't, I think the subsequent developments were rather more complicated than simply assuming that Lincoln's Republicans were the same as Eisenhower's or Nixon's or Reagan's, etc, and it seems increasingly wrong to conflate 1865 Southern Democrats with the Democratic Party of Roosevelt, then Kennedy and Johnson, then Carter, then Bill Clinton and Obama.

In short (and perhaps pushing left-right to be used where it may not be appropriate) in 1865 the Republican Party was - at least on slavery - to the left of the Democrats (or at least to the left of the Southern Democrats) but over the next century and beyond the Democratic Party moved broadly to the left, and the Republican Party moved somewhat to the left - but not as much as the Democrats - which is partly (mostly?) why the Southern Democrats more and more voted Republican.

This is an over-simplification (for example Eisenhower sent in federal troops to Little Rock in Arkansas, and I learn that the 1957 Civil Rights Act was passed under Eisenhower with much more support in Congress from Republicans than from Democrats, and that - more than somewhat to my surprise - Vice-President Nixon met with Martin Luther King and was reportedly impressed by him) but I think it's broadly correct.

I wrote most of that before reading this and this which I suggest provide at least some support for my take on this.

3 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Binita Mehta-Parmar: W... · 8 replies · +1 points

You may be correct that most Conservatives will support people like Martin Luther King for his groundbreaking actions to gain equality (I hope you are, at least now, but are you sure that at the time there weren't prominent members of, for example, the Monday Club who were more in sympathy with the opposition to the American Civil Rights movement?), but when he was active there were a large number of people in - at least - the Southern states of the USA who opposed proper equality for African-Americans (if there hadn't been the Civil Rights movement wouldn't have been needed): they might not have been "Conservatives" but I think it likely that the large majority of them were on the American right.

3 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Binita Mehta-Parmar: W... · 1 reply · +1 points

I thought Virtual Representation died sometime between 1764 (or maybe 1776 or 1783) and 1928?

3 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - John Glen: Our ban on ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Yes to all that.