Discussion:
ayes right
(too old to reply)
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-16 14:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-16 14:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered. The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-16 15:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-16 15:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes. They can't throw a Commons Bill out altogether but they can still
make life very difficult for over-ambitious Governments. They can also
introduce Bills.
charles
2019-01-16 16:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes, they do have a say. They can say "not content" so it goes back to the
Commons saying "Rethink this"
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-16 19:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes, they do have a say. They can say "not content" so it goes back to the
Commons saying "Rethink this"
Does that require it to be rethunk? How often does the rethinking result
in a different bill?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-16 20:29:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 11:27:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes, they do have a say. They can say "not content" so it goes back to the
Commons saying "Rethink this"
Does that require it to be rethunk? How often does the rethinking result
in a different bill?
The House of Lords considers each Bill (proposed Act of Parliament) in
detail and can make amendments. It is not a simple acceptance or
rejection of a Bill 'in toto'.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
John Ritson
2019-01-16 22:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 11:27:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 9:31:05 AM UTC-5, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or
"Yeses"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes, they do have a say. They can say "not content" so it goes back to the
Commons saying "Rethink this"
Does that require it to be rethunk? How often does the rethinking result
in a different bill?
The House of Lords considers each Bill (proposed Act of Parliament) in
detail and can make amendments. It is not a simple acceptance or
rejection of a Bill 'in toto'.
They cannot reject a finance bill, or a bill fulfilling a commitment in
an election manifesto.
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-17 06:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 11:27:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes, they do have a say. They can say "not content" so it goes back to the
Commons saying "Rethink this"
Does that require it to be rethunk? How often does the rethinking result
in a different bill?
The House of Lords considers each Bill (proposed Act of Parliament) in
detail and can make amendments. It is not a simple acceptance or
rejection of a Bill 'in toto'.
Do, as in the US, both Houses have to pass identically worded bills in
order for them to become law? (Presumably they don't bother with anything
along the lines of a presidential signature/veto.) The previous reply
suggested that Lords simply issues an opinion but gave no indication
that it was binding.
Janet
2019-01-17 10:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 11:27:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes, they do have a say. They can say "not content" so it goes back to the
Commons saying "Rethink this"
Does that require it to be rethunk? How often does the rethinking result
in a different bill?
The House of Lords considers each Bill (proposed Act of Parliament) in
detail and can make amendments. It is not a simple acceptance or
rejection of a Bill 'in toto'.
Do, as in the US, both Houses have to pass identically worded bills in
order for them to become law?
Yes.


(Presumably they don't bother with anything
Post by Peter T. Daniels
along the lines of a presidential signature/veto.)
Yes we do. Here it's the Royal Assent, which is the final stage after
the Bill has passed through all its stages and been finally approved by
both Houses.


The previous reply
Post by Peter T. Daniels
suggested that Lords simply issues an opinion but gave no indication
that it was binding.
You misinterpreted.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/

Janet
J. J. Lodder
2019-01-17 12:19:17 UTC
Permalink
[-]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The House of Lords considers each Bill (proposed Act of Parliament) in
detail and can make amendments. It is not a simple acceptance or
rejection of a Bill 'in toto'.
Do, as in the US, both Houses have to pass identically worded bills in
order for them to become law?
Yes.
(Presumably they don't bother with anything
Post by Peter T. Daniels
along the lines of a presidential signature/veto.)
Yes we do. Here it's the Royal Assent, which is the final stage after
the Bill has passed through all its stages and been finally approved by
both Houses.
In theory yes, but I guess that it works just like in the Netherlands.
(also by unwritten rules)
Long ago there was an obstinate queen
who thought that she could excersise real power
by refusing to sign laws.
(so she thought she had veto power)

It was pointed out to her that she would need
the agreement of a prime minister with support
of a mojority in parliament for that.
Or else, create a constitutional crisis
that might well end in a republic.

She gave in,

Jan
GordonD
2019-01-21 17:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 11:27:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:38:52 AM UTC-5, charles
Post by Janet
In article
Post by Peter T. Daniels
On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 14:18:07 UTC, Peter T.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and
"Nays," or "Yeses" and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format
for the House of Commons many centuries ago are not
available to comment, I regret that your question must
remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
The House of Lords, of course, uses "Content" and "Not
Content" which, I assume, should be more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes, they do have a say. They can say "not content" so it goes
back to the Commons saying "Rethink this"
Does that require it to be rethunk? How often does the rethinking
result in a different bill?
The House of Lords considers each Bill (proposed Act of Parliament)
in detail and can make amendments. It is not a simple acceptance
or rejection of a Bill 'in toto'.
Do, as in the US, both Houses have to pass identically worded bills
in order for them to become law? (Presumably they don't bother with
anything along the lines of a presidential signature/veto.)
Well, a bill must get Royal Assent before it becomes law but that's a
technicality as if the monarch didn't sign it would be a major issue.
See the TV play 'King Charles III' where this is the plot.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Quinn C
2019-01-21 19:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Do, as in the US, both Houses have to pass identically worded bills
in order for them to become law? (Presumably they don't bother with
anything along the lines of a presidential signature/veto.)
Well, a bill must get Royal Assent before it becomes law but that's a
technicality as if the monarch didn't sign it would be a major issue.
See the TV play 'King Charles III' where this is the plot.
While the German president is a figurehead more similar to a royal, on
the rare occasions that one refused to sign a law (about once every 10
years), parliament found it wise to have another discussion.

The president has no veto, and is only supposed to refuse signing laws
based on the opinion that they are unconstitutional.
--
We say, 'If any lady or gentleman shall buy this article _____ shall
have it for five dollars.' The blank may be filled with he, she, it,
or they; or in any other manner; and yet the form of the expression
will be too vulgar to be uttered. -- Wkly Jrnl of Commerce (1839)
Janet
2019-01-17 00:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes, they do have a say. They can say "not content" so it goes back to the
Commons saying "Rethink this"
Does that require it to be rethunk? How often does the rethinking result
in a different bill?
Commonly.

Both Houses must agree on the text of a Bill before it can become an
Act. This means that if the Bill is amended in the second House, it must
return to the first House for those amendments to be considered. The
first House can reject the amendments, make changes to them or suggest
alternatives. A Bill may move backwards and forwards between the two
Houses before agreement is reached, so this stage is sometimes called
?ping pong?.

Janet
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-17 23:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes, they do have a say. They can say "not content" so it goes back to the
Commons saying "Rethink this"
Does that require it to be rethunk? How often does the rethinking result
in a different bill?
Commonly.
Both Houses must agree on the text of a Bill before it can become an
Act. This means that if the Bill is amended in the second House, it must
return to the first House for those amendments to be considered. The
first House can reject the amendments, make changes to them or suggest
alternatives. A Bill may move backwards and forwards between the two
Houses before agreement is reached, so this stage is sometimes called
?ping pong?.
Whereas we have an ad hoc "conference committee" whenever slightly or
somewhat different versions are passed, which irons out the differences,
and then the bill is returned to each House for a final vote of acceptance
of the compromise.
John Varela
2019-01-18 21:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes, they do have a say. They can say "not content" so it goes back to the
Commons saying "Rethink this"
Does that require it to be rethunk? How often does the rethinking result
in a different bill?
Commonly.
Both Houses must agree on the text of a Bill before it can become an
Act. This means that if the Bill is amended in the second House, it must
return to the first House for those amendments to be considered. The
first House can reject the amendments, make changes to them or suggest
alternatives. A Bill may move backwards and forwards between the two
Houses before agreement is reached, so this stage is sometimes called
?ping pong?.
Or a pickle? (xthread alert)
--
John Varela
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-16 19:07:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:03:24 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Yes.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Sam Plusnet
2019-01-16 21:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Alas, after all this time we can be pretty sure those individuals are no
longer extant.
Sorry to dash your hopes in this matter.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-17 06:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Alas, after all this time we can be pretty sure those individuals are no
longer extant.
Sorry to dash your hopes in this matter.
Their records, however, are not nonexistent, and scholars of the history
of both the English language and parliamentary procedure are far from
lacking, so the question is probably quite answerable.
Janet
2019-01-17 00:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Since the person or persons who first adopted the format for the House
of Commons many centuries ago are not available to comment, I regret
that your question must remain unanswered.
That's probably not so.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Of course. Bills (draft laws) have to go through various stages in
both Houses before they receive Royal Assent to become
law.

Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-17 06:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Of course. Bills (draft laws) have to go through various stages in
both Houses before they receive Royal Assent to become
law.
As if that actually means anything. Or has done since when, 1688?
Janet
2019-01-17 11:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Of course. Bills (draft laws) have to go through various stages in
both Houses before they receive Royal Assent to become
law.
As if that actually means anything.
It was an entirely unambiguous reply to your question. Which part are
you struggling to comprehend?

Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-17 17:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Of course. Bills (draft laws) have to go through various stages in
both Houses before they receive Royal Assent to become
law.
As if that actually means anything.
It was an entirely unambiguous reply to your question. Which part are
you struggling to comprehend?
That the Royal has the option of not Assenting.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-17 17:38:56 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 09:03:54 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The House of Lords, of
course, uses "Content" and "Not Content" which, I assume, should be
more pleasing to you.
Do they have any say in anything any more?
Of course. Bills (draft laws) have to go through various stages in
both Houses before they receive Royal Assent to become
law.
As if that actually means anything.
It was an entirely unambiguous reply to your question. Which part are
you struggling to comprehend?
That the Royal has the option of not Assenting.
I've seen an opinion from a UK constitional expert that says that the
ability of the monarch to withhold Assent still exists although it can't
be done on the basis on the monarch's personal opinion of the contents
of an Act. His opinion was that Assent could be withheld only in extreme
circumstances.

The sort of extreme circumstances in which Assent might be withheld are
if an Act as presented for signature has not been through the legally
required Parliamentary procedure. Other circumstances might be if those
opposed to a Bill had been physically presented from voting on it.

The contents of a Bill being irrational or silly is much too normal to
be "extreme".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Paul Wolff
2019-01-19 00:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The contents of a Bill being irrational or silly is much too normal to
be "extreme".
Yes. May we go back three years and start again please?
--
Paul
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-01-19 09:45:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 00:11:03 GMT, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The contents of a Bill being irrational or silly is much too normal to
be "extreme".
Yes. May we go back three years and start again please?
Probably; well we're no farther forward, ISTM.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
b***@aol.com
2019-01-16 17:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Hmmm... Eyes and nose, that figures.
Jerry Friedman
2019-01-16 17:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Hmmm... Eyes and nose, that figures.
Vis-à-vis the Parliamentary senses.
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul Wolff
2019-01-16 18:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Hmmm... Eyes and nose, that figures.
Vis-à-vis the Parliamentary senses.
Hear, hear.
--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-16 19:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why is "Ayes" paired with "Noes," rather than "Ayes" and "Nays," or "Yeses"
and "Noes"?
Hmmm... Eyes and nose, that figures.
Vis-à-vis the Parliamentary senses.
Hear, hear.
Now see here!!
J. J. Lodder
2019-01-17 09:05:40 UTC
Permalink
What, exactly, would I google to find out what "Ayes on the right, NN; Noes
on the left, NN" means?
Do the MsP stand up and walk to one side of the room or the other? Is the
room big enough for 400 of them to be on one side and 200 on the other?
Can't you see it happening live,
or at least look at a playback some time later?

[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',

Jan
Bill Day
2019-01-17 15:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
Jan
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
--
remove nonsense for reply
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-17 15:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Day
Post by J. J. Lodder
[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
Jan
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
--
It's just the way we like it. There are sufficient controls for it not
to descend into actual fisticuffs (as it does in many countries) but
the gloves are off. Perhaps the US House should try it. Weirdly it
seems to lead to far greater respect and less dirty politics in the
long run, despite the fuel it gives to commentators who see a
rowdy House as something of an embarrassment.
Bill Day
2019-01-17 16:02:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 07:37:27 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
Post by J. J. Lodder
[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
Jan
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
--
It's just the way we like it. There are sufficient controls for it not
to descend into actual fisticuffs (as it does in many countries) but
the gloves are off. Perhaps the US House should try it. Weirdly it
seems to lead to far greater respect and less dirty politics in the
long run, despite the fuel it gives to commentators who see a
rowdy House as something of an embarrassment.
Ok... that is about what I suspected. One thing I do notice is that
most political figures in the House of Commons... and especially
PMs... can think & speak on their feet, whether they are widely
approved or not, and seem to be well versed in the issues....
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
I browsed some of the Youtube videos of Bercow and others and
finally saw examples of members being expelled for over-zealous
behavior.
It certainly is a different approach. Thanks for the reply.
--
remove nonsense for reply
Janet
2019-01-18 16:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: ayes right
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
[quoted text muted]
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
I browsed some of the Youtube videos of Bercow and others and
finally saw examples of members being expelled for over-zealous
behavior.
It certainly is a different approach. Thanks for the reply.
It's inherited from their rowdy schooboy days at Eton. HTH.
Most (69%) Westminster MP's went to state schools.

2017 Parliament:

29% were educated privately.
52% went to comprehensive schools,
17% to grammar schools.


Janet.
h***@gmail.com
2019-01-18 16:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: ayes right
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
[quoted text muted]
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
I browsed some of the Youtube videos of Bercow and others and
finally saw examples of members being expelled for over-zealous
behavior.
It certainly is a different approach. Thanks for the reply.
It's inherited from their rowdy schooboy days at Eton. HTH.
Most (69%) Westminster MP's went to state schools.
29% were educated privately.
52% went to comprehensive schools,
17% to grammar schools.
Yes but 1/3 Janet. Go anywhere near Twickenham on Varsity Day, to
experience aggressive and drunken behaviour, on a scale you would never
imagine. Millwall fans don't make it to parliament. If they did
they'd find Oxbridgians an altogether different class of yobbo.
Janet
2019-01-18 17:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: ayes right
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
[quoted text muted]
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
I browsed some of the Youtube videos of Bercow and others and
finally saw examples of members being expelled for over-zealous
behavior.
It certainly is a different approach. Thanks for the reply.
It's inherited from their rowdy schooboy days at Eton. HTH.
Most (69%) Westminster MP's went to state schools.
29% were educated privately.
52% went to comprehensive schools,
17% to grammar schools.
Yes but 1/3 Janet. Go anywhere near Twickenham on Varsity Day, to
experience aggressive and drunken behaviour,
If you're supposing the rowdy drunks are students from Oxford and
Cambridge, you should bear in mind that the majority of students at both
those universities, come from state schools.

Janet.
h***@gmail.com
2019-01-18 18:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: ayes right
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
[quoted text muted]
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
I browsed some of the Youtube videos of Bercow and others and
finally saw examples of members being expelled for over-zealous
behavior.
It certainly is a different approach. Thanks for the reply.
It's inherited from their rowdy schooboy days at Eton. HTH.
Most (69%) Westminster MP's went to state schools.
29% were educated privately.
52% went to comprehensive schools,
17% to grammar schools.
Yes but 1/3 Janet. Go anywhere near Twickenham on Varsity Day, to
experience aggressive and drunken behaviour,
If you're supposing the rowdy drunks are students from Oxford and
Cambridge, you should bear in mind that the majority of students at both
those universities, come from state schools.
We both know that is glib rubbish. There are no "grammar schools"
for most of our country (I live in an exception to that rule BTW).

In London: Sutton, Barnet, Kingston? Are there others?

Otherwise working-class people and immigrant families have to battle
it out in the secondary-moderns and comprehensives. How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
Janet
2019-01-18 21:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Janet
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: ayes right
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
[quoted text muted]
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
I browsed some of the Youtube videos of Bercow and others and
finally saw examples of members being expelled for over-zealous
behavior.
It certainly is a different approach. Thanks for the reply.
It's inherited from their rowdy schooboy days at Eton. HTH.
Most (69%) Westminster MP's went to state schools.
29% were educated privately.
52% went to comprehensive schools,
17% to grammar schools.
Yes but 1/3 Janet. Go anywhere near Twickenham on Varsity Day, to
experience aggressive and drunken behaviour,
If you're supposing the rowdy drunks are students from Oxford and
Cambridge, you should bear in mind that the majority of students at both
those universities, come from state schools.
We both know that is glib rubbish.
https://www.tes.com/news/more-half-last-years-oxbridge-entrants-came-
state-schools


There are no "grammar schools"
Post by h***@gmail.com
for most of our country
None at all in Scotland. But so what; plenty of kids from
comprehensive schools go to Oxbridge.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Otherwise working-class people and immigrant families have to battle
it out in the secondary-moderns and comprehensives. How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
17.9 % in 2017 intake.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-
statistics/undergraduate-students/current/ethnicity?wssl=1


https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/cambridges-2017-admissions-statistics-
published

"The proportion of Home applicants accepted who declared themselves to
be from an ethnic minority background increased from 21.8% to 22.1%,".


Far more state school, working class and ethnic minority students
would apply to Oxbridge and get places, if it wasn't for uninformed
people like you telling them it's only for rich white kids from private
schools.

Here's an example

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46900154

"41 students at Brampton Manor, a state school in east London, have
secured an offer to study at either Oxford or Cambridge this year.
The school is based in Newham - one of the poorest boroughs in London.
However, its success rivals the admission rates of some of the top-
performing private schools across the UK.Nearly all of those who
received offers are from ethnic minority backgrounds, while two-thirds
will be the first in their family to attend university. Half of them are
on free school meals."


Janet.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-19 00:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Janet
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: ayes right
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
[quoted text muted]
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
I browsed some of the Youtube videos of Bercow and others and
finally saw examples of members being expelled for over-zealous
behavior.
It certainly is a different approach. Thanks for the reply.
It's inherited from their rowdy schooboy days at Eton. HTH.
Most (69%) Westminster MP's went to state schools.
29% were educated privately.
52% went to comprehensive schools,
17% to grammar schools.
Yes but 1/3 Janet. Go anywhere near Twickenham on Varsity Day, to
experience aggressive and drunken behaviour,
If you're supposing the rowdy drunks are students from Oxford and
Cambridge, you should bear in mind that the majority of students at both
those universities, come from state schools.
We both know that is glib rubbish. There are no "grammar schools"
for most of our country (I live in an exception to that rule BTW).
In London: Sutton, Barnet, Kingston? Are there others?
Otherwise working-class people and immigrant families have to battle
it out in the secondary-moderns and comprehensives. How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
There are 163 Grammar Schools at present in England. Recent
Government moves mean that this number is likely to increase.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-01-19 09:44:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 00:05:17 GMT, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Janet
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: ayes right
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 16:02:52 GMT, Bill Day
[quoted text muted]
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
I browsed some of the Youtube videos of Bercow and others and
finally saw examples of members being expelled for
over-zealous behavior.
It certainly is a different approach. Thanks for the reply.
It's inherited from their rowdy schooboy days at Eton. HTH.
Most (69%) Westminster MP's went to state schools.
29% were educated privately.
52% went to comprehensive schools,
17% to grammar schools.
Yes but 1/3 Janet. Go anywhere near Twickenham on Varsity Day, to
experience aggressive and drunken behaviour,
If you're supposing the rowdy drunks are students from Oxford and
Cambridge, you should bear in mind that the majority of students at
both those universities, come from state schools.
We both know that is glib rubbish. There are no "grammar schools"
for most of our country (I live in an exception to that rule BTW).
In London: Sutton, Barnet, Kingston? Are there others?
Otherwise working-class people and immigrant families have to battle
it out in the secondary-moderns and comprehensives. How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
There are 163 Grammar Schools at present in England. Recent
Government moves mean that this number is likely to increase.
There is also this lot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_(English_school)
#Effectiveness_of_Multi-academy_trusts
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-19 11:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
A disproportionately large number if we recognise "posh" people from
private schools as an ethnic minority.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
RHDraney
2019-01-19 13:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by h***@gmail.com
How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
A disproportionately large number if we recognise "posh" people from
private schools as an ethnic minority.
And then there are those Crazy Rich Asians....r
Paul Wolff
2019-01-19 20:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by h***@gmail.com
How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
A disproportionately large number if we recognise "posh" people from
private schools as an ethnic minority.
That's a handy argument.

I see that the Greek origin of 'ethnic' is in nationality, but English
adopted the word to mean 'neither Christian nor Jewish'. Now we've got
"Pertaining to or designating to a population subgroup (within a larger
or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or
cultural tradition." Take 'cultural' when given the choice of 'national
or cultural' in that definition, and ethnic minority they are.
--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-19 21:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by h***@gmail.com
How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
A disproportionately large number if we recognise "posh" people from
private schools as an ethnic minority.
That's a handy argument.
I see that the Greek origin of 'ethnic' is in nationality, but English
adopted the word to mean 'neither Christian nor Jewish'.
British English, that must be. Many of the most prominent US ethnic
groups are solidly Catholic, such as Italian and Irish and Hispanic.
African Americans are most likely Protestant.
Post by Paul Wolff
Now we've got
"Pertaining to or designating to a population subgroup (within a larger
or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or
cultural tradition." Take 'cultural' when given the choice of 'national
or cultural' in that definition, and ethnic minority they are.
Ross
2019-01-19 22:49:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by h***@gmail.com
How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
A disproportionately large number if we recognise "posh" people from
private schools as an ethnic minority.
That's a handy argument.
I see that the Greek origin of 'ethnic' is in nationality, but English
adopted the word to mean 'neither Christian nor Jewish'.
British English, that must be. Many of the most prominent US ethnic
groups are solidly Catholic, such as Italian and Irish and Hispanic.
African Americans are most likely Protestant.
The "non-Christian, non-Jewish" sense is not even BrEng anymore. OED
labels it as "arch.". (Of course it's Greek modeled on goyim "nations" > "Gentiles".) The modern secular sense ("of or relating to national or
cultural origin or tradition") emerges in the 19th century.
CDB
2019-01-20 12:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
How many ethnic minority students does Oxbridge admit?
A disproportionately large number if we recognise "posh" people
from private schools as an ethnic minority.
That's a handy argument.
I see that the Greek origin of 'ethnic' is in nationality, but
English adopted the word to mean 'neither Christian nor Jewish'.
British English, that must be. Many of the most prominent US
ethnic groups are solidly Catholic, such as Italian and Irish and
Hispanic. African Americans are most likely Protestant.
The "non-Christian, non-Jewish" sense is not even BrEng anymore. OED
labels it as "arch.". (Of course it's Greek modeled on goyim
"nations" > "Gentiles".) The modern secular sense ("of or relating to
national or cultural origin or tradition") emerges in the 19th
century.
Jacques Parizeau famously used it to mean "neither English nor French"
when he attributed his party's referendum loss to "money and the ethnic
vote". His accent in English was RP, insofar as it wasn't Parisian, and
Wp confirms that he did time at the LSE.

I had forgotten that he said it in French: "l'argent et les votes
ethniques". His words were reported, and are remembered, in English as
the phrase I quoted first.


Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-19 22:08:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 20:03:08 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by h***@gmail.com
How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
A disproportionately large number if we recognise "posh" people from
private schools as an ethnic minority.
That's a handy argument.
I see that the Greek origin of 'ethnic' is in nationality, but English
adopted the word to mean 'neither Christian nor Jewish'. Now we've got
"Pertaining to or designating to a population subgroup (within a larger
or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or
cultural tradition." Take 'cultural' when given the choice of 'national
or cultural' in that definition, and ethnic minority they are.
I haven't seen any official figures, but I strongly suspect that group
is heavily under-represented in non-Oxbridge universities.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-01-20 10:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 20:03:08 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by h***@gmail.com
How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
A disproportionately large number if we recognise "posh" people from
private schools as an ethnic minority.
That's a handy argument.
I see that the Greek origin of 'ethnic' is in nationality, but
English>adopted the word to mean 'neither Christian nor Jewish'. Now
we've got>"Pertaining to or designating to a population subgroup
(within a larger>or dominant national or cultural group) with a common
national or>cultural tradition." Take 'cultural' when given the choice
of 'national>or cultural' in that definition, and ethnic minority they
are.
I haven't seen any official figures, but I strongly suspect that group
is heavily under-represented in non-Oxbridge universities.
When I was at Birmingham there were extremely few non-white students in
the biochemistry department. Not like here, where we have lots of north
Africans, a sprinkling of sub-Saharan Africans, occasional Lebanese,
and increasing (and already large) numbers of Chinese.
--
athel
charles
2019-01-19 23:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by h***@gmail.com
How many ethnic
minority students does Oxbridge admit?
A disproportionately large number if we recognise "posh" people from
private schools as an ethnic minority.
That's a handy argument.
I see that the Greek origin of 'ethnic' is in nationality, but English
adopted the word to mean 'neither Christian nor Jewish'. Now we've got
"Pertaining to or designating to a population subgroup (within a larger
or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or
cultural tradition." Take 'cultural' when given the choice of 'national
or cultural' in that definition, and ethnic minority they are.
and it also appears to have become a noun.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-01-20 10:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: ayes right
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
[quoted text muted]
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
I browsed some of the Youtube videos of Bercow and others and
finally saw examples of members being expelled for over-zealous
behavior.
It certainly is a different approach. Thanks for the reply.
It's inherited from their rowdy schooboy days at Eton. HTH.
Most (69%) Westminster MP's went to state schools.
29% were educated privately.
52% went to comprehensive schools,
17% to grammar schools.
Yes but 1/3 Janet. Go anywhere near Twickenham on Varsity Day, to
experience aggressive and drunken behaviour,
If you're supposing the rowdy drunks are students from Oxford and
Cambridge, you should bear in mind that the majority of students at both
those universities, come from state schools.
Yes, I think they, do. In my college there, were lots from state
schools. (Christchurch and Trinity were different.) We saw rowdy,
drunkenness occasionally inside the college, but not often and never
(in my experience) outside.

(See if you can spot the Janettic commas.)

I didn't notice initially that you were replying to 'Arrison. I spare
myself nowadays the trouble of reading what he says, but I see that he
still has his chip on his shoulder.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-01-20 10:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Day
[ … ]
Ok... that is about what I suspected. One thing I do notice is that
most political figures in the House of Commons... and especially
PMs... can think & speak on their feet, whether they are widely
approved or not, and seem to be well versed in the issues....
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
We had a remarkable example of that the other day in France. (Maybe on
Friday as well, but I didn't watch much of that.) Emmanuel Macron spent
seven hours discussing current problems with mayors of towns and
villages in Normandy. He allowed them to say what they wanted to say
without ever interrupting or leaping around in his seat (not in the
bits I saw, anyway). When they had finished, after he had sat silently
for five hours, he spent about two hours discussing what they had said.
For the most part he remembered who had said what, and he gave coherent
answers that indicated that he was "well versed in the issues". He was
never aggressive and at the end he received a standing ovation, even
though plenty of mayors were from different parties from his.

I can just imagine Barack Obama being capable of a similar performance,
but none of the other recent Poti, and certainly not the present one.
Likewise, if Jacques Chirac had been as young as Macron when he became
President he could perhaps have done it, but none of the others.
Nicolas Sarkozy could speak coherently for two hours, but I can't see
him sitting silently for five hours, and I can't see him speaking
without ever being aggressive.
--
athel
Bill Day
2019-01-20 14:34:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 11:29:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Bill Day
[ … ]
Ok... that is about what I suspected. One thing I do notice is that
most political figures in the House of Commons... and especially
PMs... can think & speak on their feet, whether they are widely
approved or not, and seem to be well versed in the issues....
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
We had a remarkable example of that the other day in France. (Maybe on
Friday as well, but I didn't watch much of that.) Emmanuel Macron spent
seven hours discussing current problems with mayors of towns and
villages in Normandy. He allowed them to say what they wanted to say
without ever interrupting or leaping around in his seat (not in the
bits I saw, anyway). When they had finished, after he had sat silently
for five hours, he spent about two hours discussing what they had said.
For the most part he remembered who had said what, and he gave coherent
answers that indicated that he was "well versed in the issues". He was
never aggressive and at the end he received a standing ovation, even
though plenty of mayors were from different parties from his.
I can just imagine Barack Obama being capable of a similar performance,
but none of the other recent Poti, and certainly not the present one.
Likewise, if Jacques Chirac had been as young as Macron when he became
President he could perhaps have done it, but none of the others.
Nicolas Sarkozy could speak coherently for two hours, but I can't see
him sitting silently for five hours, and I can't see him speaking
without ever being aggressive.
I really like the idea of a politician being able to both listen and
remember.... then reply coherently. Of course, that can be a problem
when he/she is some rabid extremist bent on power.
Yes, Obama was a really fine speaker who seemed to process the
issues internally while parsing his words carefully. (There have been
clever memes posted in the last year asking if we'd ever get back to
'complete sentences').
There are, though, some who are quite intelligent and sensible, but
who have problems composing extemporaneous speeches that 'flow'
easily. I had a college professor whose lectures were rather vague &
disjointed... until someone asked a direct question.... then, with a
clear point to make, he would give a brilliant, coherent explanation.
(I just saw an interview with Tony Blair on Brexit last night by
Fareed Zakaria on CNN. He was as clear & personable as I remember, no
matter what one thinks of his politics.)(He was predicting that "As
gridlock drags on, he says, a second referendum becomes "more likely")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria

It is really unfortunate that the U.S. and the U.K. have such chaos
going on at the same time... the world needs BOTH to appear stable and
confident.
--
remove nonsense for reply
J. J. Lodder
2019-01-20 21:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Day
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 11:29:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Bill Day
[ - ]
Ok... that is about what I suspected. One thing I do notice is that
most political figures in the House of Commons... and especially
PMs... can think & speak on their feet, whether they are widely
approved or not, and seem to be well versed in the issues....
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
We had a remarkable example of that the other day in France. (Maybe on
Friday as well, but I didn't watch much of that.) Emmanuel Macron spent
seven hours discussing current problems with mayors of towns and
villages in Normandy. He allowed them to say what they wanted to say
without ever interrupting or leaping around in his seat (not in the
bits I saw, anyway). When they had finished, after he had sat silently
for five hours, he spent about two hours discussing what they had said.
For the most part he remembered who had said what, and he gave coherent
answers that indicated that he was "well versed in the issues". He was
never aggressive and at the end he received a standing ovation, even
though plenty of mayors were from different parties from his.
I can just imagine Barack Obama being capable of a similar performance,
but none of the other recent Poti, and certainly not the present one.
Likewise, if Jacques Chirac had been as young as Macron when he became
President he could perhaps have done it, but none of the others.
Nicolas Sarkozy could speak coherently for two hours, but I can't see
him sitting silently for five hours, and I can't see him speaking
without ever being aggressive.
I really like the idea of a politician being able to both listen and
remember.... then reply coherently. Of course, that can be a problem
when he/she is some rabid extremist bent on power.
Yes, Obama was a really fine speaker who seemed to process the
issues internally while parsing his words carefully. (There have been
clever memes posted in the last year asking if we'd ever get back to
'complete sentences').
There are, though, some who are quite intelligent and sensible, but
who have problems composing extemporaneous speeches that 'flow'
easily. I had a college professor whose lectures were rather vague &
disjointed... until someone asked a direct question.... then, with a
clear point to make, he would give a brilliant, coherent explanation.
(I just saw an interview with Tony Blair on Brexit last night by
Fareed Zakaria on CNN. He was as clear & personable as I remember, no
matter what one thinks of his politics.)(He was predicting that "As
gridlock drags on, he says, a second referendum becomes "more likely")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria
We'll see. 'Europe' really dislikes the idea of a second referendum,
and they may not be willing to grant the necessary delay.
(because it proplongs the uncertainty for yet another 4 months)
The general feeling is that a delay is acceptable only
to implement a positive and direct new proposal.
(like the UK saying they want to adopt the Canadian model, for example)

If Britain wants a referendum they had better find a way
to hold it in April at latest.
Saying it can't be done that rapidly is probably equivalent
to not having a second referendum.
Post by Bill Day
It is really unfortunate that the U.S. and the U.K. have such chaos
going on at the same time... the world needs BOTH to appear stable and
confident.
But despite ll that the hard Brexiteers are quite sure
that they will get a good trade deal from the Trump,

Jan

FYA, here is the latest Collignon, Crash Test & Dummies
<https://images3.persgroep.net/rcs/E9rwJM1nK88DuiYHWP2xzpCRz9M/dioconten
t/139790006/_fitwidth/763?appId=93a17a8fd81db0de025c8abd1cca1279&quality
=0.8>
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-21 00:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Bill Day
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 11:29:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Bill Day
[ - ]
Ok... that is about what I suspected. One thing I do notice is that
most political figures in the House of Commons... and especially
PMs... can think & speak on their feet, whether they are widely
approved or not, and seem to be well versed in the issues....
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
We had a remarkable example of that the other day in France. (Maybe on
Friday as well, but I didn't watch much of that.) Emmanuel Macron spent
seven hours discussing current problems with mayors of towns and
villages in Normandy. He allowed them to say what they wanted to say
without ever interrupting or leaping around in his seat (not in the
bits I saw, anyway). When they had finished, after he had sat silently
for five hours, he spent about two hours discussing what they had said.
For the most part he remembered who had said what, and he gave coherent
answers that indicated that he was "well versed in the issues". He was
never aggressive and at the end he received a standing ovation, even
though plenty of mayors were from different parties from his.
I can just imagine Barack Obama being capable of a similar performance,
but none of the other recent Poti, and certainly not the present one.
Likewise, if Jacques Chirac had been as young as Macron when he became
President he could perhaps have done it, but none of the others.
Nicolas Sarkozy could speak coherently for two hours, but I can't see
him sitting silently for five hours, and I can't see him speaking
without ever being aggressive.
I really like the idea of a politician being able to both listen and
remember.... then reply coherently. Of course, that can be a problem
when he/she is some rabid extremist bent on power.
Yes, Obama was a really fine speaker who seemed to process the
issues internally while parsing his words carefully. (There have been
clever memes posted in the last year asking if we'd ever get back to
'complete sentences').
There are, though, some who are quite intelligent and sensible, but
who have problems composing extemporaneous speeches that 'flow'
easily. I had a college professor whose lectures were rather vague &
disjointed... until someone asked a direct question.... then, with a
clear point to make, he would give a brilliant, coherent explanation.
(I just saw an interview with Tony Blair on Brexit last night by
Fareed Zakaria on CNN. He was as clear & personable as I remember, no
matter what one thinks of his politics.)(He was predicting that "As
gridlock drags on, he says, a second referendum becomes "more likely")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria
We'll see. 'Europe' really dislikes the idea of a second referendum,
and they may not be willing to grant the necessary delay.
It is not in their gift. If there's a delay, there's a delay.
Post by J. J. Lodder
(because it proplongs the uncertainty for yet another 4 months)
The general feeling is that a delay is acceptable only
to implement a positive and direct new proposal.
(like the UK saying they want to adopt the Canadian model, for example)
If Britain wants a referendum they had better find a way
to hold it in April at latest.
Saying it can't be done that rapidly is probably equivalent
to not having a second referendum.
Post by Bill Day
It is really unfortunate that the U.S. and the U.K. have such chaos
going on at the same time... the world needs BOTH to appear stable and
confident.
But despite ll that the hard Brexiteers are quite sure
that they will get a good trade deal from the Trump,
There will not be a second referendum. It would be electoral
suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and even if
one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would
be strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
J. J. Lodder
2019-01-21 09:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Bill Day
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 11:29:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Bill Day
[ - ]
Ok... that is about what I suspected. One thing I do notice is that
most political figures in the House of Commons... and especially
PMs... can think & speak on their feet, whether they are widely
approved or not, and seem to be well versed in the issues....
something I honestly cannot say about a number US House members.
We had a remarkable example of that the other day in France. (Maybe on
Friday as well, but I didn't watch much of that.) Emmanuel Macron spent
seven hours discussing current problems with mayors of towns and
villages in Normandy. He allowed them to say what they wanted to say
without ever interrupting or leaping around in his seat (not in the
bits I saw, anyway). When they had finished, after he had sat silently
for five hours, he spent about two hours discussing what they had said.
For the most part he remembered who had said what, and he gave coherent
answers that indicated that he was "well versed in the issues". He was
never aggressive and at the end he received a standing ovation, even
though plenty of mayors were from different parties from his.
I can just imagine Barack Obama being capable of a similar performance,
but none of the other recent Poti, and certainly not the present one.
Likewise, if Jacques Chirac had been as young as Macron when he became
President he could perhaps have done it, but none of the others.
Nicolas Sarkozy could speak coherently for two hours, but I can't see
him sitting silently for five hours, and I can't see him speaking
without ever being aggressive.
I really like the idea of a politician being able to both listen and
remember.... then reply coherently. Of course, that can be a problem
when he/she is some rabid extremist bent on power.
Yes, Obama was a really fine speaker who seemed to process the
issues internally while parsing his words carefully. (There have been
clever memes posted in the last year asking if we'd ever get back to
'complete sentences').
There are, though, some who are quite intelligent and sensible, but
who have problems composing extemporaneous speeches that 'flow'
easily. I had a college professor whose lectures were rather vague &
disjointed... until someone asked a direct question.... then, with a
clear point to make, he would give a brilliant, coherent explanation.
(I just saw an interview with Tony Blair on Brexit last night by
Fareed Zakaria on CNN. He was as clear & personable as I remember, no
matter what one thinks of his politics.)(He was predicting that "As
gridlock drags on, he says, a second referendum becomes "more likely")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria
We'll see. 'Europe' really dislikes the idea of a second referendum,
and they may not be willing to grant the necessary delay.
It is not in their gift. If there's a delay, there's a delay.
It is. In that case the EU can just say no.
One 'no' out of 27 suffices.
The referendum, if stilll wanted,
will be held in that case after the hard Brexit has happened.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by J. J. Lodder
(because it proplongs the uncertainty for yet another 4 months)
The general feeling is that a delay is acceptable only
to implement a positive and direct new proposal.
(like the UK saying they want to adopt the Canadian model, for example)
If Britain wants a referendum they had better find a way
to hold it in April at latest.
Saying it can't be done that rapidly is probably equivalent
to not having a second referendum.
Post by Bill Day
It is really unfortunate that the U.S. and the U.K. have such chaos
going on at the same time... the world needs BOTH to appear stable and
confident.
But despite ll that the hard Brexiteers are quite sure
that they will get a good trade deal from the Trump,
There will not be a second referendum.
We agree, but I was less categorical about it.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?

Jan
Janet
2019-01-21 13:22:32 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, ***@de-
ster.demon.nl says...

Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.

It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.

Janet.
J. J. Lodder
2019-01-21 14:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
Yes, we already agreed on that.
It is obviously the right thing to do,
and equally impossible to really do it.

Jan
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-21 16:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
Yes, we already agreed on that.
It is obviously the right thing to do,
and equally impossible to really do it.
How on Earth can it be "obviously right"?
J. J. Lodder
2019-01-22 09:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support
one and even if one of the other parties could get a Bill
introduced it would be strangled at birth as the whips worked
their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it. Who
can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
Yes, we already agreed on that.
It is obviously the right thing to do,
and equally impossible to really do it.
How on Earth can it be "obviously right"?
I have explained why I think so several times here,
and I have even started a thread on it.
Britain has put itself in a Condorcet situation:
There are three main options,
and all three are second choice to a majority.

The UK got there because parliament gave away its sovereignty
by allowing a referendum.
So either parliament takes it back, which is highly unlikely,
or there must be another referendum to break the deadlock,
(which is also highly unlikely)

So on to the by now most likely outcome,
which has the largest majority against it,

Jan
Paul Wolff
2019-01-22 13:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on an
overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?

I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
--
Paul
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-22 14:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on an
overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
--
The SNP held 56 constituencies at the time of the Referendum all of
which (I think) voted Remain. If those constituencies lost in the 2017
General Election were to follow their new MPs to the Leave side then
the majority would be greater in a second referendum.
Peter Young
2019-01-22 15:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on an
overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
Oh, no, it wasn't! If only more people had bothered to vote.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Au)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Katy Jennison
2019-01-22 16:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on an
overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
Oh, no, it wasn't! If only more people had bothered to vote.
I saw a pie chart the other day which showed not just the Leave, Remain
and Didn't Vote slices but also the Couldn't Vote (on account of being
too young, or not actually living in the UK at the time, or not
registered to vote, etc). The Leave vote was little more than a quarter
of the total.
--
Katy Jennison
Paul Wolff
2019-01-22 17:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on an
overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear
expression of the will of the British people".
Oh, no, it wasn't! If only more people had bothered to vote.
I saw a pie chart the other day which showed not just the Leave, Remain
and Didn't Vote slices but also the Couldn't Vote (on account of being
too young, or not actually living in the UK at the time, or not
registered to vote, etc). The Leave vote was little more than a
quarter of the total.
I hope the pie chart also included the foreigners-entitled-to-vote-here
cohort. Well, I suppose it couldn't, because to the extent that they did
vote, it would be double-counting to add a separate pie slice for them.

There should be a kitchen utensil for that...
--
Paul
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-22 17:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on an
overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
Oh, no, it wasn't! If only more people had bothered to vote.
I saw a pie chart the other day which showed not just the Leave, Remain
and Didn't Vote slices but also the Couldn't Vote (on account of being
too young, or not actually living in the UK at the time, or not
registered to vote, etc). The Leave vote was little more than a quarter
of the total.
Be that as it may, the Remain vote was still less than that. And
I assume that you're not advocating suffrage for children?
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-22 18:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on an
overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
Oh, no, it wasn't! If only more people had bothered to vote.
I saw a pie chart the other day which showed not just the Leave, Remain
and Didn't Vote slices but also the Couldn't Vote (on account of being
too young, or not actually living in the UK at the time, or not
registered to vote, etc). The Leave vote was little more than a quarter
of the total.
Be that as it may, the Remain vote was still less than that. And
I assume that you're not advocating suffrage for children?
NYS is about to enact legislation for 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-
register to vote (so they can't just "fuhgeddaboudit" when they
become eligible), as a requirement of high school graduation. There's
also a move to lower the voting age to 16, in the aftermath of the
activism of the Parkland High School (where the massacre was) students.

The voting age was made 18, by Constitutional Amendment, before 1972,
so that those who were being drafted would have some say in the policy.
States could lower it individually if they wished.

What's yours?
Andy Leighton
2019-01-22 18:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on an
overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
Oh, no, it wasn't! If only more people had bothered to vote.
I saw a pie chart the other day which showed not just the Leave, Remain
and Didn't Vote slices but also the Couldn't Vote (on account of being
too young, or not actually living in the UK at the time, or not
registered to vote, etc). The Leave vote was little more than a quarter
of the total.
Be that as it may, the Remain vote was still less than that. And
I assume that you're not advocating suffrage for children?
Suffrage for 16+ yes*. 16 and 17 year olds could vote in the Scottish
Independece referendum and there doesn't seem to have been any harm
done to democracy there.

I think throughout history when the franchise has been expanded, or
has been proposed to be expanded, there have always been doomsayers but
every expansion so far has been necessary and beneficial to the
country.

* I would also extend voting rights to prisoners too.
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
Katy Jennison
2019-01-22 21:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Paul Wolff
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
Oh, no, it wasn't! If only more people had bothered to vote.
I saw a pie chart the other day which showed not just the Leave, Remain
and Didn't Vote slices but also the Couldn't Vote (on account of being
too young, or not actually living in the UK at the time, or not
registered to vote, etc). The Leave vote was little more than a quarter
of the total.
Be that as it may, the Remain vote was still less than that.
Yes, yes, but what I'm pointing out is that it was not 'a clear
expression of the will of the British people'. It was a clear
expression of the will of a minority of them.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter Young
2019-01-22 17:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on an
overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
Oh, no, it wasn't! If only more people had bothered to vote.
I saw a pie chart the other day which showed not just the Leave, Remain
and Didn't Vote slices but also the Couldn't Vote (on account of being
too young, or not actually living in the UK at the time, or not
registered to vote, etc). The Leave vote was little more than a quarter
of the total.
Exactly my point, but I wasn't sure of the figures. So much for "the will
of the people".

Q. How do you know when a politician is telling lies?
A. When his lips are moving.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Au)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
J. J. Lodder
2019-01-22 21:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on an
overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
Oh, no, it wasn't! If only more people had bothered to vote.
That's the trouble with referendums.
After the fact, nothing matters anymore,
and the result is set in stone.

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-01-22 17:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on
an overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
Except that the British people most immediately affected, i.e. those
who don't live in the UK, were not allowed to vote.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-22 18:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Paul Wolff
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on
an overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
Except that the British people most immediately affected, i.e. those
who don't live in the UK, were not allowed to vote.
That's how it works in Israel, too, and Bibi ain't about to change it.
Paul Wolff
2019-01-22 19:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on
an overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear
expression of the will of the British people".
Except that the British people most immediately affected, i.e. those
who don't live in the UK, were not allowed to vote.
Indeed. It is the theatre of the absurd gone mad. I've sworn never, ever
to vote Conservative again in my whole life, or even after I'm dead.
--
Paul
J. J. Lodder
2019-01-22 21:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on
an overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear
expression of the will of the British people".
Except that the British people most immediately affected, i.e. those
who don't live in the UK, were not allowed to vote.
Indeed. It is the theatre of the absurd gone mad. I've sworn never, ever
to vote Conservative again in my whole life, or even after I'm dead.
Nothing absurb about it.
Just the dictatorship of 50% + 1 enshrined.
A referendum is the most undemocratic form of democracy,

Jan
charles
2019-01-22 21:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
What explains the discrepancy with the 52:48 leave:remain division on
an overall country-wide vote count? Could it be in the proportions of
abstentions across the constituencies (but I don't immediately see why
all those "I'm not telling" non-votes should make a difference)?
I have to keep reminding myself that the result was "a clear expression
of the will of the British people".
Except that the British people most immediately affected, i.e. those
who don't live in the UK, were not allowed to vote.
It's similar to the "no taxation without repesentation" call, but the
other way round.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
pensive hamster
2019-01-22 21:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...
Madrigal said
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It would be electoral suicide for either May or Corbyn to support one and
even if one of the other parties could get a Bill introduced it would be
strangled at birth as the whips worked their evil magic!
Right. It can only happen if a majority in parliament forces it.
Who can predict what an enraged parliament that has suddenly discovered
its sovereignty can do?
MP's of all parties share one ambition; to be re-elected by their
constituents.
It's estimated that 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of
Labour constituencies voted Leave.
On the other hand:

https://www.ft.com/content/dc56ee36-bea4-11e8-95b1-d36dfef1b89a
September 22, 2018
Poll shows 86% of Labour members want new Brexit vote

Other polls are available.

Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-17 17:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
It's just the way we like it. There are sufficient controls for it not
to descend into actual fisticuffs (as it does in many countries) but
the gloves are off. Perhaps the US House should try it. Weirdly it
seems to lead to far greater respect and less dirty politics in the
long run, despite the fuel it gives to commentators who see a
rowdy House as something of an embarrassment.
Episodes of physical violence in both Chambers are well documented.
They seem not to have recurred since the mid 19th century.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-01-20 10:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
It's just the way we like it. There are sufficient controls for it not
to descend into actual fisticuffs (as it does in many countries) but
the gloves are off. Perhaps the US House should try it. Weirdly it
seems to lead to far greater respect and less dirty politics in the
long run, despite the fuel it gives to commentators who see a
rowdy House as something of an embarrassment.
Episodes of physical violence in both Chambers are well documented.
They seem not to have recurred since the mid 19th century.
Have there been any duels (outside the Chambers, of course) since 1804?
--
athel
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-20 12:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
It's just the way we like it. There are sufficient controls for it not
to descend into actual fisticuffs (as it does in many countries) but
the gloves are off. Perhaps the US House should try it. Weirdly it
seems to lead to far greater respect and less dirty politics in the
long run, despite the fuel it gives to commentators who see a
rowdy House as something of an embarrassment.
Episodes of physical violence in both Chambers are well documented.
They seem not to have recurred since the mid 19th century.
Have there been any duels (outside the Chambers, of course) since 1804?
Politician v. politician

1809: George Canning and Lord Castlereagh;
Canning was slightly wounded.

1822: James Stuart and Alexander Boswell.

1829: The Duke of Wellington and the 10th Earl of Winchilsea;
both aimed wide.

On a political matter but not involving MPs ...

1835: William Arden, 2nd Baron Alvanley and Morgan O'Connell,
son of Daniel O'Connell. Alvanley asserted that Morgan's father
had been "purchased" by William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne
on his accession to the office of Prime Minister, O'Connell retorted
by calling Alvanley "a bloated buffoon"

The last duel in Britain that reached the ears of the public was
in 1852. There may, of course, have been secret duels in the
subsequent period. Lutenist Ben Salford has "confessed" to
participating in a sword duel in 1994 at, appropriately enough,
Battle.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-01-20 15:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
It's just the way we like it. There are sufficient controls for it not
to descend into actual fisticuffs (as it does in many countries) but
the gloves are off. Perhaps the US House should try it. Weirdly it
seems to lead to far greater respect and less dirty politics in the
long run, despite the fuel it gives to commentators who see a
rowdy House as something of an embarrassment.
Episodes of physical violence in both Chambers are well documented.
They seem not to have recurred since the mid 19th century.
Have there been any duels (outside the Chambers, of course) since 1804?
Politician v. politician
1809: George Canning and Lord Castlereagh;
Canning was slightly wounded.
...

I was thinking of God's country.
--
athel
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-20 16:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
It's just the way we like it. There are sufficient controls for it not
to descend into actual fisticuffs (as it does in many countries) but
the gloves are off. Perhaps the US House should try it. Weirdly it
seems to lead to far greater respect and less dirty politics in the
long run, despite the fuel it gives to commentators who see a
rowdy House as something of an embarrassment.
Episodes of physical violence in both Chambers are well documented.
They seem not to have recurred since the mid 19th century.
Have there been any duels (outside the Chambers, of course) since 1804?
Politician v. politician
1809: George Canning and Lord Castlereagh;
Canning was slightly wounded.
...
I was thinking of God's country.
I don't think there were any in Yorkshire!
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-20 15:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
It's just the way we like it. There are sufficient controls for it not
to descend into actual fisticuffs (as it does in many countries) but
the gloves are off. Perhaps the US House should try it. Weirdly it
seems to lead to far greater respect and less dirty politics in the
long run, despite the fuel it gives to commentators who see a
rowdy House as something of an embarrassment.
Episodes of physical violence in both Chambers are well documented.
They seem not to have recurred since the mid 19th century.
Have there been any duels (outside the Chambers, of course) since 1804?
If so, they weren't of such great pith and moment. That one was already
illegal, and (though no one expected Aaron Burr to be gentlemanly) a fatal
outcome was evidently unheard of.
Katy Jennison
2019-01-17 21:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
Post by J. J. Lodder
[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
Jan
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
--
It's just the way we like it.
FSVO "we". Some of us are utterly repelled by it.
--
Katy Jennison
Tony Cooper
2019-01-18 02:51:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:19:58 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
Post by J. J. Lodder
[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
Jan
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
--
It's just the way we like it.
FSVO "we". Some of us are utterly repelled by it.
I find it rather refreshing. On a trip to Washington DC I observed
the doings on the floor from the Senate visitor's gallery. One
Senator was making a speech and it didn't appear as if any of the
other Senators on the floor were paying any attention to the speech at
all. Most of the seats were empty. Of those in attendance, some were
doing paperwork, some were chatting with other Senators, and some
seemed to be napping. There was a lot of coming and going. It was
obvious that Senator delivering the speech was doing so for the sole
reason of getting his speech into the Record.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2019-01-18 02:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:19:58 +0000, Katy Jennison
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
--
It's just the way we like it.
FSVO "we". Some of us are utterly repelled by it.
I find it rather refreshing. On a trip to Washington DC I observed
the doings on the floor from the Senate visitor's gallery. One
Senator was making a speech and it didn't appear as if any of the
other Senators on the floor were paying any attention to the speech at
all. Most of the seats were empty. Of those in attendance, some were
doing paperwork, some were chatting with other Senators, and some
seemed to be napping. There was a lot of coming and going. It was
obvious that Senator delivering the speech was doing so for the sole
reason of getting his speech into the Record.
And onto C-SPAN, from which it could conceivably make its way onto the
local news in his district, or at least his Web site.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-18 05:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:19:58 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
It's just the way we like it.
FSVO "we". Some of us are utterly repelled by it.
I find it rather refreshing. On a trip to Washington DC I observed
the doings on the floor from the Senate visitor's gallery. One
Senator was making a speech and it didn't appear as if any of the
other Senators on the floor were paying any attention to the speech at
all. Most of the seats were empty. Of those in attendance, some were
doing paperwork, some were chatting with other Senators, and some
seemed to be napping. There was a lot of coming and going. It was
obvious that Senator delivering the speech was doing so for the sole
reason of getting his speech into the Record.
And onto C-SPAN, from which it could conceivably make its way onto the
local news in his district, or at least his Web site.
Well ... he didn't say what decade he made this astonishing discovery in.
bill van
2019-01-18 06:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:19:58 +0000, Katy Jennison
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
--
It's just the way we like it.
FSVO "we". Some of us are utterly repelled by it.
I find it rather refreshing. On a trip to Washington DC I observed
the doings on the floor from the Senate visitor's gallery. One
Senator was making a speech and it didn't appear as if any of the
other Senators on the floor were paying any attention to the speech at
all. Most of the seats were empty. Of those in attendance, some were
doing paperwork, some were chatting with other Senators, and some
seemed to be napping. There was a lot of coming and going. It was
obvious that Senator delivering the speech was doing so for the sole
reason of getting his speech into the Record.
And onto C-SPAN, from which it could conceivably make its way onto the
local news in his district, or at least his Web site.
Sure. Getting his speech into the record means that it will be found by
people doing Web searches on the
appropriate terms. That's how he finds his audience.

bill
Tony Cooper
2019-01-18 14:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill van
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:19:58 +0000, Katy Jennison
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
--
It's just the way we like it.
FSVO "we". Some of us are utterly repelled by it.
I find it rather refreshing. On a trip to Washington DC I observed
the doings on the floor from the Senate visitor's gallery. One
Senator was making a speech and it didn't appear as if any of the
other Senators on the floor were paying any attention to the speech at
all. Most of the seats were empty. Of those in attendance, some were
doing paperwork, some were chatting with other Senators, and some
seemed to be napping. There was a lot of coming and going. It was
obvious that Senator delivering the speech was doing so for the sole
reason of getting his speech into the Record.
And onto C-SPAN, from which it could conceivably make its way onto the
local news in his district, or at least his Web site.
Sure. Getting his speech into the record means that it will be found by
people doing Web searches on the
appropriate terms. That's how he finds his audience.
bill
I was referring to the Congressional Record. That's why I capitalized
the word.

The Congressional Record is the official record of the proceeding and
debates of Congress and has been so since 1873.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2019-01-18 15:01:46 UTC
Permalink
[Order!]
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by bill van
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On a trip to Washington DC I observed
the doings on the floor from the Senate visitor's gallery. One
Senator was making a speech and it didn't appear as if any of the
other Senators on the floor were paying any attention to the speech at
all. Most of the seats were empty. Of those in attendance, some were
doing paperwork, some were chatting with other Senators, and some
seemed to be napping. There was a lot of coming and going. It was
obvious that Senator delivering the speech was doing so for the sole
reason of getting his speech into the Record.
And onto C-SPAN, from which it could conceivably make its way onto the
local news in his district, or at least his Web site.
Sure. Getting his speech into the record means that it will be found by
people doing Web searches on the
appropriate terms. That's how he finds his audience.
bill
I was referring to the Congressional Record. That's why I capitalized
the word.
The Congressional Record is the official record of the proceeding and
debates of Congress and has been so since 1873.
Maybe I should have followed my first impulse and started my reply with
"And getting it into the record."
--
Jerry Friedman
bill van
2019-01-18 19:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by bill van
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:19:58 +0000, Katy Jennison
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
--
It's just the way we like it.
FSVO "we". Some of us are utterly repelled by it.
I find it rather refreshing. On a trip to Washington DC I observed
the doings on the floor from the Senate visitor's gallery. One
Senator was making a speech and it didn't appear as if any of the
other Senators on the floor were paying any attention to the speech at
all. Most of the seats were empty. Of those in attendance, some were
doing paperwork, some were chatting with other Senators, and some
seemed to be napping. There was a lot of coming and going. It was
obvious that Senator delivering the speech was doing so for the sole
reason of getting his speech into the Record.
And onto C-SPAN, from which it could conceivably make its way onto the
local news in his district, or at least his Web site.
Sure. Getting his speech into the record means that it will be found by
people doing Web searches on the
appropriate terms. That's how he finds his audience.
bill
I was referring to the Congressional Record. That's why I capitalized
the word.
The Congressional Record is the official record of the proceeding and
debates of Congress and has been so since 1873.
Is the Congressional Record searchable by members of the public with
Internet access?

bill
Jerry Friedman
2019-01-18 20:10:38 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
On a trip to Washington DC I observed
Post by Tony Cooper
the doings on the floor from the Senate visitor's gallery. One
Senator was making a speech and it didn't appear as if any of the
other Senators on the floor were paying any attention to the speech at
all. Most of the seats were empty. Of those in attendance, some were
doing paperwork, some were chatting with other Senators, and some
seemed to be napping. There was a lot of coming and going. It was
obvious that Senator delivering the speech was doing so for the sole
reason of getting his speech into the Record.
And onto C-SPAN, from which it could conceivably make its way onto the
local news in his district, or at least his Web site.
Sure. Getting his speech into the record means that it will be found by
people doing Web searches on the
appropriate terms. That's how he finds his audience.
bill
I was referring to the Congressional Record. That's why I capitalized
the word.
The Congressional Record is the official record of the proceeding and
debates of Congress and has been so since 1873.
Is the Congressional Record searchable by members of the public with
Internet access?
Yes. I didn't try to figure out how far back you can search.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record
--
Jerry Friedman
bill van
2019-01-19 05:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
On a trip to Washington DC I observed
Post by Tony Cooper
the doings on the floor from the Senate visitor's gallery. One
Senator was making a speech and it didn't appear as if any of the
other Senators on the floor were paying any attention to the speech at
all. Most of the seats were empty. Of those in attendance, some were
doing paperwork, some were chatting with other Senators, and some
seemed to be napping. There was a lot of coming and going. It was
obvious that Senator delivering the speech was doing so for the sole
reason of getting his speech into the Record.
And onto C-SPAN, from which it could conceivably make its way onto the
local news in his district, or at least his Web site.
Sure. Getting his speech into the record means that it will be found by
people doing Web searches on the
appropriate terms. That's how he finds his audience.
bill
I was referring to the Congressional Record. That's why I capitalized
the word.
The Congressional Record is the official record of the proceeding and
debates of Congress and has been so since 1873.
Is the Congressional Record searchable by members of the public with
Internet access?
Yes. I didn't try to figure out how far back you can search.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record
1995 to present, according to that page. No doubt the rest is archived
some way.

Anyhow, getting the speech into the Congressional Record also seems to put it
into the public record.

Our version is called Hansard.

bill
Andy Leighton
2019-01-18 10:15:53 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:51:19 -0500,
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:19:58 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Bill Day
Post by J. J. Lodder
[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
Jan
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
--
It's just the way we like it.
FSVO "we". Some of us are utterly repelled by it.
I find it rather refreshing. On a trip to Washington DC I observed
the doings on the floor from the Senate visitor's gallery. One
Senator was making a speech and it didn't appear as if any of the
other Senators on the floor were paying any attention to the speech at
all. Most of the seats were empty. Of those in attendance, some were
doing paperwork, some were chatting with other Senators, and some
seemed to be napping. There was a lot of coming and going. It was
obvious that Senator delivering the speech was doing so for the sole
reason of getting his speech into the Record.
Yep but the House of Commons is pretty much the same.

It is just that the Brexit and no-confidence debates are much better
attended than normal, and PMQs is nearly always a full house.
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
Paul Wolff
2019-01-19 00:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Day
Post by J. J. Lodder
[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats... and when some relatively small
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
You are seeing a rare demonstration of Anglo-Saxon sang-froid.

The House of Lords doesn't do such things; they are composed and
respectful in everything. The House of Commons is, as its name might
suggest, down to earth. And it's intensely jealous of its traditions,
which include shouting abuse at the other side, so long as it's couched
in Parliamentary (meaning gentlemanly) language.
--
Paul
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-19 12:48:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 00:20:19 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Bill Day
Post by Bill Day
Post by J. J. Lodder
[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats...
Re: "jumping up and down in their seats":
Standing up is the official way for an MP to indicate that he/she wishes
to speak. This happens after someone has finished speaking. The Speaker
(chairman of the chamber) will choose one of them to speak next.

Sometimes MPs will stand up while someone else is speaking. An MP can
only interrupt the person speaking if that person "gives way".

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/give-way/

To 'give way' or 'giving way' are the terms used by MPs who want to
interrupt an MP who is speaking in the House of Commons. An MP
cannot intervene when another MP is speaking to the House unless
that MP allows it by giving way.

The interrupter can make a point that can then be replied to by the
interrupted person when (s)he starts speaking again.
Post by Bill Day
and when some relatively small
Post by Bill Day
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
You are seeing a rare demonstration of Anglo-Saxon sang-froid.
The House of Lords doesn't do such things; they are composed and
respectful in everything. The House of Commons is, as its name might
suggest, down to earth. And it's intensely jealous of its traditions,
which include shouting abuse at the other side, so long as it's couched
in Parliamentary (meaning gentlemanly) language.
<smile>

Also the behavior seen in TV news coverage of the House of Commons is
not typical of the majority of debates.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Bill Day
2019-01-19 15:53:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 12:48:06 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 00:20:19 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Bill Day
Post by Bill Day
Post by J. J. Lodder
[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats...
Standing up is the official way for an MP to indicate that he/she wishes
to speak. This happens after someone has finished speaking. The Speaker
(chairman of the chamber) will choose one of them to speak next.
I did figure that out from watching PMs questions (which has become
quite the spectacle this last year or so).... but I often see a large
portion of the members pop out of their seats during a heated time. I
would assume this gives the Speaker... the aforementiond Mr. Bercow..
tremendous power to grant or withhold favor.... and he IS a member of
one party. Something similar exists in the US House, but not in
restricting the opportunity to speak.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sometimes MPs will stand up while someone else is speaking. An MP can
only interrupt the person speaking if that person "gives way".
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/give-way/
To 'give way' or 'giving way' are the terms used by MPs who want to
interrupt an MP who is speaking in the House of Commons. An MP
cannot intervene when another MP is speaking to the House unless
that MP allows it by giving way.
The interrupter can make a point that can then be replied to by the
interrupted person when (s)he starts speaking again.
Post by Bill Day
and when some relatively small
Post by Bill Day
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
You are seeing a rare demonstration of Anglo-Saxon sang-froid.
The House of Lords doesn't do such things; they are composed and
respectful in everything. The House of Commons is, as its name might
suggest, down to earth. And it's intensely jealous of its traditions,
which include shouting abuse at the other side, so long as it's couched
in Parliamentary (meaning gentlemanly) language.
Well, that 'intense jealousy' is rather what I suspected in my OP. I
realize it would require being part of the culture for a long time to
viscerally understand just how that situation developed and how it is
understood **in context** by those participating.
I do see in imported UK situation comedy TV programs, a much more
pronounced use of insult and put-downs... (whether serious or not)..
than over here in Leftpondia. I read several online forums
(fora?)..including this one.. where similar postings often startle me
with sharp, seemingly angry, debates.
I do enjoy the learned detail.. from all sides... but I am never
quite sure how much grudging respect is hidden behind acrimonious
remarks. I'll stop now and just read... :>)
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
<smile>
Also the behavior seen in TV news coverage of the House of Commons is
not typical of the majority of debates.
--
remove nonsense for reply
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-19 17:30:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 10:53:28 -0500, Bill Day
Post by Bill Day
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 12:48:06 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 00:20:19 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Bill Day
Post by Bill Day
Post by J. J. Lodder
[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats...
Standing up is the official way for an MP to indicate that he/she wishes
to speak. This happens after someone has finished speaking. The Speaker
(chairman of the chamber) will choose one of them to speak next.
I did figure that out from watching PMs questions (which has become
quite the spectacle this last year or so).... but I often see a large
portion of the members pop out of their seats during a heated time. I
would assume this gives the Speaker... the aforementiond Mr. Bercow..
tremendous power to grant or withhold favor.... and he IS a member of
one party. Something similar exists in the US House, but not in
restricting the opportunity to speak.
He *was* a member of a party.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/the-role-of-the-speaker/role-of-the-speaker/

Politically impartial

Speakers must be politically impartial. Therefore, on election the
new Speaker must resign from their political party and remain
separate from political issues even in retirement. However, the
Speaker will deal with their constituents' problems like a normal
MP.

Speakers and general elections

Speakers still stand in general elections. They are generally
unopposed by the major political parties, who will not field a
candidate in the Speaker's constituency - this includes the original
party they were a member of. During a general election, Speakers do
not campaign on any political issues but simply stand as 'the
Speaker seeking re-election'.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_House_of_Commons_(United_Kingdom)>

The Speaker does not take part in debate or vote (except to break
ties; and even then, the convention is that the speaker casts the
tie-breaking vote according to Speaker Denison's rule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_Denison%27s_rule

Speaker Denison's rule is a constitutional convention established by
from 1857 to 1872, regarding how the Speaker decides on his casting
vote in the event of a tie.

The principle is to always vote in favour of further debate, or,
where it has been previously decided to have no further debate or in
some specific instances, to vote in favour of the status quo.

For example, the Speaker will vote:
<snipped>

The thinking behind the rule is that change should only occur if an
actual majority vote is in favour of the change.

Speaker Denison's rule is now a guiding principle in many other
bodies that have neutral chairpersons.
Post by Bill Day
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sometimes MPs will stand up while someone else is speaking. An MP can
only interrupt the person speaking if that person "gives way".
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/give-way/
To 'give way' or 'giving way' are the terms used by MPs who want to
interrupt an MP who is speaking in the House of Commons. An MP
cannot intervene when another MP is speaking to the House unless
that MP allows it by giving way.
The interrupter can make a point that can then be replied to by the
interrupted person when (s)he starts speaking again.
Post by Bill Day
and when some relatively small
Post by Bill Day
disturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
You are seeing a rare demonstration of Anglo-Saxon sang-froid.
The House of Lords doesn't do such things; they are composed and
respectful in everything. The House of Commons is, as its name might
suggest, down to earth. And it's intensely jealous of its traditions,
which include shouting abuse at the other side, so long as it's couched
in Parliamentary (meaning gentlemanly) language.
Well, that 'intense jealousy' is rather what I suspected in my OP. I
realize it would require being part of the culture for a long time to
viscerally understand just how that situation developed and how it is
understood **in context** by those participating.
I do see in imported UK situation comedy TV programs, a much more
pronounced use of insult and put-downs... (whether serious or not)..
than over here in Leftpondia. I read several online forums
(fora?)..including this one.. where similar postings often startle me
with sharp, seemingly angry, debates.
I do enjoy the learned detail.. from all sides... but I am never
quite sure how much grudging respect is hidden behind acrimonious
remarks. I'll stop now and just read... :>)
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
<smile>
Also the behavior seen in TV news coverage of the House of Commons is
not typical of the majority of debates.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-19 17:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 10:53:28 -0500, Bill Day
Post by Bill Day
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 12:48:06 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 00:20:19 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Bill Day
Post by J. J. Lodder
[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats...
Standing up is the official way for an MP to indicate that he/she wishes
to speak. This happens after someone has finished speaking. The Speaker
(chairman of the chamber) will choose one of them to speak next.
I did figure that out from watching PMs questions (which has become
quite the spectacle this last year or so).... but I often see a large
portion of the members pop out of their seats during a heated time. I
would assume this gives the Speaker... the aforementiond Mr. Bercow..
tremendous power to grant or withhold favor.... and he IS a member of
one party. Something similar exists in the US House, but not in
restricting the opportunity to speak.
He *was* a member of a party.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/the-role-of-the-speaker/role-of-the-speaker/
Politically impartial
Speakers must be politically impartial.
They must but the present incumbent has this week been accused
of bias, first in granting a vote on a business matter which is very
iffy, and then on seeming to favour the Opposition. As he will be
quitting within months anyway he'll probably not be too troubled
but I suspect that his successor will be under more than usually
intense scrutiny.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-19 21:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Speakers and general elections
Speakers still stand in general elections. They are generally
unopposed by the major political parties, who will not field a
candidate in the Speaker's constituency - this includes the original
party they were a member of. During a general election, Speakers do
not campaign on any political issues but simply stand as 'the
Speaker seeking re-election'.
How sad. Some years back, Speaker Tom Foley was defeated in his ordinary
reelection campaign.

More recently, the congressman who was expected to succeed to the Speaker-
ship upon the retirement of was it John Boehner was knocked out in the
Republican primary because he was not sufficiently "conservative." It
took them weeks to come up with Paul Ryan, who really did not want the
job, was Romney's running-mate, and quit the Speakership (announced he
would not run in the 2018 election) months ago.

At the moment, Pelosi alone seems to stand between Trump and whatever the
next scheme is going to be.

(Because we have "checks and balances." The president is not the tool of
Congress, or vice versa. There is no such thing as a "confidence vote.")
Loading...