Future of the European Union

[Furunculus]

I think that Pan' is referring to the traditions of English politics. While the 'loyal opposition' is supposed to have a shadow government ready to step forward with their policies if a vote of no confidence shifts the governing party from office (the political alternative function you allude to), traditionally that loyal opposition party has been much more 'pushy' during questions etc. so as to force the government to clarify policy and their reasons for taking certain actions so that voters might be better informed. The opposition is supposed to ask the tough questions that put the government on the spot and not go along to get along save where the national interest is so clear that more or less all parties agree on a particular policy.

Yes, at least I would certainly agree:

It is not tory/labour domindation of the institutions that makes the british political system so effective.
Not too is it the winner takes all nature of an adversarial electoral system to the commons.
It isn't the great reserve of wisdom in the Lords and its dogged pursuit of the role of a revising chamber.
It isn't even the great flexibility of an uncodified constitution.

No, it is the 'process' of parliament that is a function of all of the above.
That jostling of ideas, in an environment of sharp legal elbows and fractious political tempers.
This process has a tendency to rub off the sharp corners of ideas put before parliament, such the the resultant product better fits the wider polity.

Her majesty's loyal opposition have not been performing their essential role in 'jostling' the executive.
They seem more interested in their internal transformation project, with a pious hope that their ideological project will roll out the back of the scrum of a Tory government.

I have enormous confidence in the 'process' of the parliament, and thus the effectiveness of the british political system, but the engine doesn't always run smooth.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, at least I would certainly agree:

It is not tory/labour domindation of the institutions that makes the british political system so effective.
Not too is it the winner takes all nature of an adversarial electoral system to the commons.
It isn't the great reserve of wisdom in the Lords and its dogged pursuit of the role of a revising chamber.
It isn't even the great flexibility of an uncodified constitution.

No, it is the 'process' of parliament that is a function of all of the above.
That jostling of ideas, in an environment of sharp legal elbows and fractious political tempers.
This process has a tendency to rub off the sharp corners of ideas put before parliament, such the the resultant product better fits the wider polity.

Her majesty's loyal opposition have not been performing their essential role in 'jostling' the executive.
They seem more interested in their internal transformation project, with a pious hope that their ideological project will roll out the back of the scrum of a Tory government.

I have enormous confidence in the 'process' of the parliament, and thus the effectiveness of the british political system, but the engine doesn't always run smooth.

This "process" has led to the creation of an inefficient, zombie-like UK industry in the 1960s / 70s and the consequent hollowing out in the 1980s and 1990s. No decisions made on pension reform for decades - tackling final salaries for baby boomers was a problem that could be foreseen for the last 40 years or so. New Labour's massive PFI off the books debt; devolution but no review of the Barnett formula and so on and so on.

The UK might lurch along in spite of the many inefficiencies of the political system we have but again we either seem to have no long term strategy - either more of the same or diametrically opposite - caused by our dreadful first past the post system at all levels in England and with local representatives also being the national representative. It is almost designed to ensure politicians have long, stable careers more than react to what locals want... except with a massive shift when "the other lot" get complete power and begin working.

I agree that other parts of the system help in improving how this functions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I hate the inefficiencies of government....but sometimes I fear the idea of a truly efficient government even more. I always thought Herbert was onto something with BuSab.

[Husar]

I hate the inefficiencies of government....but sometimes I fear the idea of a truly efficient government even more. I always thought Herbert was onto something with BuSab.

Well, how would you define government efficiency?

Where I come from, efficiency means same output with lower input or higher output with same input.
Translated to government that would mean same road quality with lower taxes or same taxes but better road quality.
The only ones who could possibly be against that are the contractors who build the road and would rather build bad roads for lots of government money to maximize their own profits/money-making-efficiency...

[Fragony]

Well, how would you define government efficiency?

Where I come from, efficiency means same output with lower input or higher output with same input.
Translated to government that would mean same road quality with lower taxes or same taxes but better road quality.
The only ones who could possibly be against that are the contractors who build the road and would rather build bad roads for lots of government money to maximize their own profits/money-making-efficiency...

Where tou came from destroyed everting twice, won't hold WW1 and WW2 against you bur wtrh the schaffende Muti I really can, once again Germany screw everything, say hi to the raped girls for me, I would have protected them it is my job after all, shady as ir may be they would have been fine

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Where tou came from destroyed everting twice, won't hold WW1 and WW2 against you bur wtrh the schaffende Muti I really can, once again Germany screw everything, say hi to the raped girls for me, I would have protected them it is my job after all, shady as ir may be they would have been fine

Drunk? That comment is way out of line, Frags, and personally insulting to Husar. Say what you will about Germany's past evil-doings, but casting that on Husar is just wrong.

[Fragony]

Drunk? That comment is way out of line, Frags, and personally insulting to Husar. Say what you will about Germany's past evil-doings, but casting that on Husar is just wrong.

Not directed at Husar. But Germany does as it pleases, the EU is nothing more then Germany, and France morally blackmailing them. A fourth reich with a bitch of a wife

edit, Something is moving in Italy. Don't know a lot about Italy and their politics but 'eurosceptic' parties have a majority

[Montmorency]

@Husar

How do you contextualize those leftists' perspectives (in my post) on the EU within the reform/replacement process? There are a number of permutations.

I hate the inefficiencies of government....but sometimes I fear the idea of a truly efficient government even more. I always thought Herbert was onto something with BuSab.

I'm don't think I've seen it explicitly confirmed in my readings as of now, but my impression is that luxury socialism requires built-in inefficiencies to prevent the accumulation of inequality in power, wealth, and influence.

So for example, if you have rotating hierarchies, one month the position of Transport Secretary could be filled by an administrative genius, the next a disinterested bozo whose staff must constantly run damage control, most months something in between. I'm just making it up though, haven't seen it entailed.

Hard to see how you ever install the system if you start with a deliberately inefficient government, so someone will still have to think about who is sacrificed in the process...
252693451

[Furunculus]

This "process" has led to the creation of an inefficient, zombie-like UK industry in the 1960s / 70s and the consequent hollowing out in the 1980s and 1990s. No decisions made on pension reform for decades - tackling final salaries for baby boomers was a problem that could be foreseen for the last 40 years or so. New Labour's massive PFI off the books debt; devolution but no review of the Barnett formula and so on and so on.

The UK might lurch along in spite of the many inefficiencies of the political system we have but again we either seem to have no long term strategy - either more of the same or diametrically opposite - caused by our dreadful first past the post system at all levels in England and with local representatives also being the national representative. It is almost designed to ensure politicians have long, stable careers more than react to what locals want... except with a massive shift when "the other lot" get complete power and begin working.

I agree that other parts of the system help in improving how this functions.

i'm not at at sure what you say is true, unless your point is confined to a specific part of the system, and not the wider process i allude to.

we have - perhaps by accident - built constructive dissent into the system in a way that i think is missing in many consensusal political systems:

https://qz.com/1269977/a-berkeley-pr...troublemakers/