ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags political speculation , uk politics

Reply
Old 28th May 2019, 08:13 PM   #41
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Thanks. This covers mostly stuff I already knew. Unfortunately, it doesn't explain what "unelected" means in this context. The way you describe it (and the way I understand it) all PMs are unelected (or elected, if you prefer). What I still don't see in this is how some PMs get to be "elected", and others get to be "unelected". Darat is clearly trying to communicate information that he finds significant, but I'm still lacking the context to understand what is significant.
In essence it means that someone becomes the leader of the party that forms government without having led that party in a general election.

Tony Abbott was the leader of the Australian Liberal Party at the time of the 2013 election. The Liberal Party formed government and he therefore became the "elected" Prime Minister. The electorate put the party in power while he was leader. Later, he was ousted as leader and Malcolm Turnbull became the leader, and thus the PM. He became PM without leading the party during an election - he was therefore "unelected".

Later still, Turnbull led the party during the 2016 election. The Liberal Party again formed government and he became the "elected" Prime Minister, because he led the party during the general election. He was then ousted in favour of Scott Morrison, who became the "unelected" Prime Minister. Morrrison then led the party during the 2019 election and became the "elected" Prime Minister.

Is this clearer? Someone who leads the party during a general election becomes an "elected" Prime Minister, while someone who becomes Prime Minister without having led the party during a general election is "unelected".

It should be noted that "elected" and "unelected" are informal terms only. Formally and legally, there is just the Prime Minister and it doesn't matter whether they were "elected" or not.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 08:37 PM   #42
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,736
I have no special insight. But I think the chances of a No Deal Brexit probably went up a lot.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 08:45 PM   #43
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,124
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
In essence it means that someone becomes the leader of the party that forms government without having led that party in a general election.

Tony Abbott was the leader of the Australian Liberal Party at the time of the 2013 election. The Liberal Party formed government and he therefore became the "elected" Prime Minister. The electorate put the party in power while he was leader. Later, he was ousted as leader and Malcolm Turnbull became the leader, and thus the PM. He became PM without leading the party during an election - he was therefore "unelected".

Later still, Turnbull led the party during the 2016 election. The Liberal Party again formed government and he became the "elected" Prime Minister, because he led the party during the general election. He was then ousted in favour of Scott Morrison, who became the "unelected" Prime Minister. Morrrison then led the party during the 2019 election and became the "elected" Prime Minister.

Is this clearer? Someone who leads the party during a general election becomes an "elected" Prime Minister, while someone who becomes Prime Minister without having led the party during a general election is "unelected".

It should be noted that "elected" and "unelected" are informal terms only. Formally and legally, there is just the Prime Minister and it doesn't matter whether they were "elected" or not.
Gotcha, thanks. That's the nuance that was escaping me.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 08:46 PM   #44
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Gotcha, thanks. That's the nuance that was escaping me.
Glad to be able to help.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 11:20 PM   #45
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,879
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I have no special insight. But I think the chances of a No Deal Brexit probably went up a lot.
IMO it hasn't changed one bit

The only possible outcomes IMO are no deal and no Brexit. The latter, though almost certainly the least damaging economically is apparently impossible politically despite the fact that most MPs are against no-deal. OTOH no-deal is not only politically acceptable (at least until the economic chickens come home to roost but at that point in time others will be blamed), it's also the default outcome so IMO it is now, and has always been, a near-certainty.

[PrivateFrazer]We're doooooooooooooomed !!!111!!!1!!![/PrivateFrazer]
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 03:03 AM   #46
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,736
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
IMO it hasn't changed one bit

The only possible outcomes IMO are no deal and no Brexit.
The latter, though almost certainly the least damaging economically is apparently impossible politically despite the fact that most MPs are against no-deal. OTOH no-deal is not only politically acceptable (at least until the economic chickens come home to roost but at that point in time others will be blamed), it's also the default outcome so IMO it is now, and has always been, a near-certainty.

[PrivateFrazer]We're doooooooooooooomed !!!111!!!1!!![/PrivateFrazer]
I was thinking of another referendum. Which ultimately could lead to either of those, but it would be a way for the people to confirm whether Brexit is still what they want. The problem is, as I see it, that while a majority did vote for Brexit, what kind of Brexit was left to decide later. I doubt that all of the people who voted for Brexit believed that they were voting for a No Deal Brexit. I think they deserve to be asked a second time, with exactly what Brexit means spelled out, and not left to work out later.

But, if the next PM is a determined Brexiteer, they may just opt for a no-deal Brexit. I don't think any "new and improved deal" significantly different from May's deal is available.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Last edited by Puppycow; 29th May 2019 at 03:04 AM.
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 03:47 AM   #47
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,525
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
IMO it hasn't changed one bit

The only possible outcomes IMO are no deal and no Brexit.
[ no-deal is] also the default outcome so IMO it is now, and has always been, a near-certainty.
I'm still fairly optmistic that there won't be any major decisions on no-deal or no brexit until there has been a 2nd referendum, or "confirmatory vote" or whatever they want to call it.

While yes the new tory PM is likely to be an ardent Brexiteer, the numbers haven't changed in the HoC and about the only thing parliament agreed on was no deal was unacceptable. The tories still have a razor thin majority that they need the DUP for, both Tories and Labour were eviscerated in the recent EU elections and the vote split roughly 40% for Brexit 40% against Brexit and 20% "other"

Within both the main parties MPs and party members are split roughly 50/50 on Brexit so there's no clear majority for anything.

There's no way in hell the new PM will call a snap GE (mores the pity) but I don't think they will be able to avoid calls for a 2nd referendum.

I'd hope that once the tories candidates are down to the final 2 one will be a remainer and one will be a Brexiteer, but that might be a little too optimistic.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 04:13 AM   #48
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,390
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I'm still fairly optmistic that there won't be any major decisions on no-deal or no brexit until there has been a 2nd referendum, or "confirmatory vote" or whatever they want to call it.

While yes the new tory PM is likely to be an ardent Brexiteer, the numbers haven't changed in the HoC and about the only thing parliament agreed on was no deal was unacceptable. The tories still have a razor thin majority that they need the DUP for, both Tories and Labour were eviscerated in the recent EU elections and the vote split roughly 40% for Brexit 40% against Brexit and 20% "other"
But it is easier to sink negotiations and not worry about legislation and get no deal that way. It is after all the thing that needs to be prevented rather than something that needs to win any kind of vote. So unless an acceptable alternative appears it does seem inevitable.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 04:19 AM   #49
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,390
What seems to be the biggest difference between america and Britain is that the executive and legislative are not as separate. So the head of a government agency is also an MP and the PM is in a lot of ways chosen more like out Speaker of the House than our president.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 04:21 AM   #50
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,879
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I'm still fairly optmistic that there won't be any major decisions on no-deal or no brexit until there has been a 2nd referendum, or "confirmatory vote" or whatever they want to call it.

While yes the new tory PM is likely to be an ardent Brexiteer, the numbers haven't changed in the HoC and about the only thing parliament agreed on was no deal was unacceptable. The tories still have a razor thin majority that they need the DUP for, both Tories and Labour were eviscerated in the recent EU elections and the vote split roughly 40% for Brexit 40% against Brexit and 20% "other"

Within both the main parties MPs and party members are split roughly 50/50 on Brexit so there's no clear majority for anything.

There's no way in hell the new PM will call a snap GE (mores the pity) but I don't think they will be able to avoid calls for a 2nd referendum.

I'd hope that once the tories candidates are down to the final 2 one will be a remainer and one will be a Brexiteer, but that might be a little too optimistic.
Regarding the highlighted, they may average out at 50/50 but Labour splits 70/30 Remain and the Conservatives are 70/30 Leave.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 05:41 AM   #51
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,481
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The only possible outcomes IMO are no deal and no Brexit.
Other possibilities are 1) a deal 2) a delay again 3) a general election and 4) another referendum

Regarding 1), a demand from next PM (let's assume Boris for now but it doesn't matter) for concessions from the EU is more likely to elicit them than another demand from Theresa May would have been. A brexiteer PM who is credibly more tolerant of no deal has more leverage with the EU and no deal is still highly unpalatable to the EU because of a) no financial settlement and b) it would probably fall to the EU to put up a customs border in Ireland. I don't think this increased leverage over the EU will be enough, but I think it has risen from the May days.

2) The possibility of delay arises from any of the EU and UK mutually balking at a no deal ultimatum, and from 3) and 4)

3) I understand that it would take 7 Tory MPs to quit the party to deprive Tory/DUP of its de-facto majority. That seems like a long shot and it is although 3 quit already to ultimately join Change UK. I don't think it really matters that Change UK backfired significantly as a party, resigning MPs would know that the reason they would do this now would be to bring down the government and that that would succeed if they have the numbers. (It would of course take less than 7 if Sinn Fein opted even temporarily to take their seats and help bring down the government. I have seen nothing to suggest this, though it must be awfully tempting and it could certainly be seen as acting in Irish republican interests)

4) The likelihood of this without 3) seems vanishingly small.

All in all I think the probability of no deal on 31/10/19 has risen to almost 50% but remains below that.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 05:45 AM   #52
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,481
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
the numbers haven't changed in the HoC and about the only thing parliament agreed on was no deal was unacceptable.
It only just agreed on that (by three votes IIRC), and HM Government does not have to take any notice. One PM's "ignoring the will of the house" may be another's "refusing to wimpishly relinquish control/authority to MPs"

Last edited by Francesca R; 29th May 2019 at 05:54 AM.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 05:53 AM   #53
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,879
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
Other possibilities are 1) a deal 2) a delay again 3) a general election and 4) another referendum
Yes, those are other possibilities regarding each of those in turn....

1. A Deal

Both of the two main parties have red lines in place which prevents either EEA membership or Customs Union membership and there appears to be no movement on those. Parliament has repeatedly rejected Theresa May's deal and refused anything softer.

2. A Delay Again

This isn't an outcome IMO - it's delaying an outcome. At the end of all the delays there will be an outcome and IMO there are only two alternatives no-deal or no-Brexit

3. A General Election

This only comes into play if the general election occurs before the end of the delay period.

If the Conservatives win the election, they will press ahead with a no-deal. If the Brexit Party wins the election, they will press ahead with a no-deal. If the LibDems win the election they will cancel Brexit. If Labour wins then it's unclear what may happen but the inability to get a deal through and Labour's adherence to Brexit means that we're back at no-deal or no-Brexit as the outcomes.

4. Another referendum

The leaderships of the two largest parties do not want a referendum because it might imperil their Brexit aims. Parliament has been repeatedly asked and has rejected the idea.

Labour would apparently want a referendum if we were heading towards a no deal - which leaves us with the same pair of outcomes, no-deal or no-Brexit.


IMO we still ultimately end up with no-deal, no-Brexit or a choice between the two.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 06:01 AM   #54
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,481
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
1. A Deal
My thinking is that greater concession from the EU (pretty much over the backstop) would be sufficiently more likely to pass the house that it stands a decent chance of succeeding where May x 3 failed

Quote:
3. A General Election

This only comes into play if the general election occurs before the end of the delay period.
Oh absolutely. Tory MPs have to defect quite soon after the leadership election. Even then the 31/10 deadline does not officially change, but I think it would lapse, and a few different bets than no deal are back on.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 06:44 AM   #55
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,809
What would be changed over the backstop that wouldn't result in it being a pointless thing?
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 08:27 AM   #56
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,390
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
What would be changed over the backstop that wouldn't result in it being a pointless thing?
An actual plan to resolve the Irish border. This is totally impossible so really the only thing that can be done is tearing up the good Friday agreement. And that is sure to help long term British negotiating power.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 12:30 PM   #57
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
Hey, an "Unlected" PM is what you get when you have a Parlimentary form of government.
Don't know hat Darat meant by that;I know the last few elections have not gone the way Darat wanted but still, short of moving to something closer to the American System the PM will contiuet to be "unelected".
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 01:28 PM   #58
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,336
Sajid Javid and Esther McVey think it's within their powers to deny self-determination to a nation of the UK. That will go down well with the Engnats that they are pandering to.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 01:36 PM   #59
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,879
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Sajid Javid and Esther McVey think it's within their powers to deny self-determination to a nation of the UK. That will go down well with the Engnats that they are pandering to.
For a unionist party, the Conservatives have been going about it completely the wrong way.....

Scotland and Norn Iron have got the message. For some reason the Welsh seem wedded to Brexit
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 01:38 PM   #60
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,879
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Hey, an "Unlected" PM is what you get when you have a Parlimentary form of government.
Don't know hat Darat meant by that;I know the last few elections have not gone the way Darat wanted but still, short of moving to something closer to the American System the PM will contiuet to be "unelected".
Typically, a party leader who is successfully elected to PM will see out their term. It tends to be when they lose an election that the party leadership changes.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 01:56 PM   #61
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,336
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
For a unionist party, the Conservatives have been going about it completely the wrong way.....

Scotland and Norn Iron have got the message. For some reason the Welsh seem wedded to Brexit
Unionist is synonymous with Imperialist so no they have been doing it exactly right.

The problem is people are starting to see it for what it is. English nationalism wrapped in a Union Flag.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 04:43 PM   #62
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
Still angry over Culloden, I see.....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 05:54 AM   #63
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,663
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Still angry over Culloden, I see.....
Too soon, dude!
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:22 AM   #64
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
An actual plan to resolve the Irish border. This is totally impossible so really the only thing that can be done is tearing up the good Friday agreement. And that is sure to help long term British negotiating power.
Actually all the GFA says about the border is that it should be demilitarised; it says nothing about it being open (even now taxes differ across the border and you cannot freely move goods across the border without any paperwork). The concern really is the propaganda value to people who would take it as an excuse for a return to violence. The UK could do a hard Brexit and it would not breach the GFA.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:44 AM   #65
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
What seems to be the biggest difference between america and Britain is that the executive and legislative are not as separate. So the head of a government agency is also an MP and the PM is in a lot of ways chosen more like out Speaker of the House than our president.
That is how most democracies work. There is a head of state monarch or president who is more of a figure head (E.g. Germany, Israel. Ireland), and the executive is formed by the political party who can command a majority of elected representatives. The political heads of department are elected representatives (ministers) and those who run the department (civil servants) are supposed to be apolitical.

The US is an exception in having an unelected people as the executive and often having the elected representatives at loggerheads with the executive.

Also having so many frankly political appointments such as judges that in other countries would be ineligible for appointment for the very reason of being politically biased.

Last edited by Planigale; 30th May 2019 at 10:50 AM.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:59 AM   #66
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,390
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
That is how most democracies work. There is a head of state monarch or president who is more of a figure head (E.g. Germany, Israel. Ireland), and the executive is formed by the political party who can command a majority of elected representatives. The political heads of department are elected representatives (ministers) and those who run the department (civil servants) are supposed to be apolitical.

The US is an exception in having an unelected people as the executive and often having the elected representatives at loggerheads with the executive.

Also having so many frankly political appointments such as judges that in other countries would be ineligible for appointment for the very reason of being politically biased.
How are judges hired in other countries?

Though the ministers are roughly like the politically appointed heads of departments as far as I know. Hence the difference in the executive between career and political appointments.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 12:10 PM   #67
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 16,499
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
How are judges hired in other countries?

Though the ministers are roughly like the politically appointed heads of departments as far as I know. Hence the difference in the executive between career and political appointments.
A typical model in Europe would be 'career judges' - people who come up through the bar (QC's for example) - and then there are the politically appointed. For example, before we had the Supreme Court, final appeals on legal matters of importance went before a panel made up of Lords, from the House of Lords, usually three.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 06:12 PM   #68
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
In Australia there just isn't a distinction between legislative and executive. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with a majority in Parliament. There is the Crown, of course, but that's literally a rubber-stamp position.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 06:30 PM   #69
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,133
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
In Australia there just isn't a distinction between legislative and executive. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with a majority in Parliament. There is the Crown, of course, but that's literally a rubber-stamp position.
I know you know this, but others may not. Royal Assent is required before any bill becomes active. This not done by the Queen but is delegated to the governor or governor-general. Technically the queen’s rep can disallow a bill (as that mongrel GG Kerr did in 1975), but since then the most that happens is that questions might be asked of the intent or impact of a bill. I’m not aware of any bill being rejected since 1975.

Although in the grand scheme of governing Australia the need of the Queen’s rep to rubber stamp a bill is not a major issue, for me it is justification to become a republic. Not that the LNP would ever support this.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 06:33 PM   #70
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,995
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I know you know this, but others may not. Royal Assent is required before any bill becomes active. This not done by the Queen but is delegated to the governor or governor-general. Technically the queen’s rep can disallow a bill (as that mongrel GG Kerr did in 1975), but since then the most that happens is that questions might be asked of the intent or impact of a bill. I’m not aware of any bill being rejected since 1975.

Although in the grand scheme of governing Australia the need of the Queen’s rep to rubber stamp a bill is not a major issue, for me it is justification to become a republic. Not that the LNP would ever support this.
Yep, it would simply need the removal of the phone line from Yarralumla to Buck House, change the position name to "First Bloke" or "First Sheila" if you must, then carry on as now.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 07:21 PM   #71
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I know you know this, but others may not. Royal Assent is required before any bill becomes active. This not done by the Queen but is delegated to the governor or governor-general. Technically the queen’s rep can disallow a bill (as that mongrel GG Kerr did in 1975), but since then the most that happens is that questions might be asked of the intent or impact of a bill. I’m not aware of any bill being rejected since 1975.

Although in the grand scheme of governing Australia the need of the Queen’s rep to rubber stamp a bill is not a major issue, for me it is justification to become a republic. Not that the LNP would ever support this.
Oh, I agree on the republic thing. I'm just saying that in terms of process, Royal Assent is nothing more than a rubber stamp. The GG does not influence policy in any way whatsoever. It's an entirely ceremonial role.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 11:09 PM   #72
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,318
Polls are starting to show an interesting dynamic in UK.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...ecome-party-48

LibDem: 24%
Brexit: 22%
Labour, Con: 19% (tie)
Green: 8%

Labour and Conservatives are probably starting to regret their 2011 Alternative vote referendum positions. Labour took no stance, Conservatives opposed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_U...ote_referendum

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 12:00 AM   #73
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A typical model in Europe would be 'career judges' - people who come up through the bar (QC's for example) - and then there are the politically appointed. For example, before we had the Supreme Court, final appeals on legal matters of importance went before a panel made up of Lords, from the House of Lords, usually three.
Vixen you once gain show your ignorance of the legal system. It worked the other way round; senior judges were promoted to house of lords and became a law lord and effectively formed the supreme court. Lords were not appointed judges. Only senior judges became a law lord. It did mean that the most senior judges could advise on legislation and vote on the law before it became law.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 12:02 AM   #74
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,481
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Actually all the GFA says about the border is that it should be demilitarised; it says nothing about it being open (even now taxes differ across the border and you cannot freely move goods across the border without any paperwork). The concern really is the propaganda value to people who would take it as an excuse for a return to violence.
And the concern on the part of Irish republicans in both countries who see any kind of a border as a step away from their objective

ETA the point being that opposition to a north south border is not confined to those who want to uphold the GFA as being something that preserves the separation of two countries along that border but also shared by those who want to dismantle it.

Last edited by Francesca R; 31st May 2019 at 12:20 AM.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 12:06 AM   #75
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
How are judges hired in other countries?

Though the ministers are roughly like the politically appointed heads of departments as far as I know. Hence the difference in the executive between career and political appointments.
As said from senior lawyers usually over the age of 50 in the UK. Judges would not be eligible for appointment if they were frankly political, most people with an interest in becoming a judge would avoid belonging to a political party or anything that might be seen as signalling political partisanship. There is a very hands off approach from politicians in appointments to avoid any sense of political appointment. The senior judges essentially appoint the more junior (it is actually more complex with a whole office of judicial appointments, temporary and part time appointments, vetting etc. before a full time appointment is made).
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 09:43 AM   #76
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 16,499
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Vixen you once gain show your ignorance of the legal system. It worked the other way round; senior judges were promoted to house of lords and became a law lord and effectively formed the supreme court. Lords were not appointed judges. Only senior judges became a law lord. It did mean that the most senior judges could advise on legislation and vote on the law before it became law.
I am pretty sure I came across one case where the judge was a Lord but had no real background in law, so whilst most of them might have been senior judges anyway I don't think it was a person specification for that role (referring to when it was the House of Lords that presided rather than the more recently formed Supreme Court).

Bearing in mind that of the usual three judges, one judge was the lead whilst the other two were there as the side judges.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 03:13 PM   #77
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am pretty sure I came across one case where the judge was a Lord but had no real background in law, so whilst most of them might have been senior judges anyway I don't think it was a person specification for that role (referring to when it was the House of Lords that presided rather than the more recently formed Supreme Court).

Bearing in mind that of the usual three judges, one judge was the lead whilst the other two were there as the side judges.
Not sure how old you are but since 1876 only law lords (professional lawyers) judged cases, and usually they were judged by 5 law lords, sometimes more.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/...bpjudicial.pdf
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 09:01 AM   #78
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 16,499
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Not sure how old you are but since 1876 only law lords (professional lawyers) judged cases, and usually they were judged by 5 law lords, sometimes more.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/...bpjudicial.pdf
The quorum is three.

And note the word, 'usually'.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 09:23 AM   #79
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,805
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The quorum is three.

And note the word, 'usually'.
You said there were "usually" three judges, Planigale said there are "usually" five. One of you is wrong, and I'm pretty sure I know which one.
Matthew Best is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 02:30 PM   #80
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,663
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Though the ministers are roughly like the politically appointed heads of departments as far as I know.
It doesn't seem much alike at all. Some departments are headed by secretaries of state, others by senior ministers, but there are also junior ministers within departments. Generally, though, they're MPs, or - less frequently - members of the house of Lords.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.