.. these fascinating lectures really should be broadcast at (prime time !) .. 7 - 10 pm on the terrestial main channel .. BBC 2, because they are very interesting and I think a lot of people would find them interesting, if only they could see them .. ;)) they should not just be broadcast only on the BBC Parliament channel .. but please dont get me wrong ! I am very grateful that the Parliament channel broadcasts at all ..;))
The Germans, insisting -- as they inexplicably do -- on speaking German, have the word 'Schwerpunkt', for the pivot-point upon which events rotate. In an incredible, bravura performance, this lecture identifies a vast richness of these points in the conflict between the 5 major parties in the last general election, and of those between the electorate. Wonderful job.
It is ironic that the Conservative and Unionist Party is opposed to one of the primary measures that could secure the Union: electoral reform. They ought not to place party before country.
I fail to see how electoral reform could achieve anything. If Scotland sent a few fewer SNP MPs to Westminster and a few more Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem (which would be the affect of PR) would it matter to most people?
Bogdanor's identification of the nationalist v. open society cleavage in politics was prescient, coming as it did long before Brexit and Trump. But I don't see SNP as hostile to open society values, its nationalism is of the civic nationalism variety. SNP campaigned for the "Remain" side in the EU referendum.
what do both of you think of the idea that SNP has to be more open to the world/europhile because scotland would fair much worse on ite own than england or a united britain would?
Excellent lecture, but I think Professor Bogdanor's comparison between the FPTP and Proportional results speak for themselves. Prty list proportional is the way to go, I think.
Labour responded by electing a pensioner to lead them , unlike skipping a generation as Bogdanor suggested. Ah well , ye ken noo. After destroying his opponents David Cameron ( Bogdanor's student ) destroyed himself and his pal Osborne.
Rather than make all of Commons proportional, just make 100 seats proportional, with parties getting 1 seat for every 1% of the total vote they get nationwide. This would leave 550 seats still under the first-past-the-post system, yet still allow significant minority parties like UKIP and the Greens to get a fairer share of seats.
Just assign all seats proportionally, FFS. Give people a first and second choice for the parties of their choosing. If one party receives less than 3,08% (=20 seats in house of commons) of the nation-wide vote, the same votes will instead be allocated to the second choices given (As to not have fringe parties in the house of commons). It would be so easy, it boggles my mind.
@@roberttausig9170 Lots of people call for PR, no one wants the inevitable consequence of PR: hung Parliaments like 2010-15, coalition government, a minor party with maybe 8 or 10% of the vote calling the shots to larger parties and acting as kingmakers. Also very few people want a government with the UK Lib Dems whose main issue is constitutional reforms, rather than the issues of interest to the public such as jobs, schools, the economy.
Proportional representation is a terrible idea because it presumes that political parties have validity, whereas, in the modern political age, we are moving in the direction of individual politicians who have their own specific agendas, though they may loosely adhere to the principles of a political party. Who decides which members of the party will represent those voters who voted for a party line? --- invariably the party insiders. As Hayek pointed out, in all bureaucratic organizations, the worst rise to the top because they are sychophants. Ultimately what society requires is the Classical Liberalism of the old British Liberal party and Thomas Jefferson, only even more free-market. Only Libertarianism (Classical Liberalism) is based on a sound political philosophy --- the sanctity of the Rights of the Individual over and above the State. Thatcher was halfway there, but nowhere near radically capitalist enough.
You perhaps give away that you are an American. Thomas Jefferson isn't even a name over here, no one has remotely heard of the supposedly liberal principles he stood for. And all that monarchy-bashing of the Jeffersonian Republicans would get nowhere here.
despite his closing statement this entire lecture comes across as incredibly speculative and biassed. It lacks the understanding necessary in a political climate where everybody has very different opinions. When you describe the voting of today based off a quite trivial date of 1945 it presumes that choice of a party is based upon the history of a party since then. I don't know how that doesn't seem ridiculous to him. Also I prefer 'Single Transferable Vote' to the 'Proportional Representation' as the later does not allow for majority party voters to have representatives within the area. The one thing I hope people learn to agree on soon is the fact that the thoughtless system we currently have in place does more harm than good to all of the parties involved and most importantly to those who voted.
I wish he would say "Twenty-fifteen" rather than "Two thousand and fifteen". In other lectures he has spoken of "Nineteen-fifteen" and not "One thousand, nine hundred and fifteen".
The UK people kick the can down the road. EU is dying, and the Brits look like Greeks except for the economy and the Sunny days of Greece. Professor Vernon Bogdanor is fluffing his lips launched in an arid, boring and sterile narrative of the situation of the “political” system of the UK. Perhaps in audience are only those who believe in miracles and love the august speeches which bring no food on the table. The Brits became lazy and brought their former colonies people to do the jobs they hate to do, and now complain of overcrowded health care system, thinning of the benefits they, some time ago, received and now go as fees in the expensive club that formed over Pas de Calais a few decades ago. No the decline of the economy is not due to the EU, is due to the lack of British initiative, the lack of spine of the Brits now , when their empire collapsed and the lack of understanding that dynamics of the world is not what they believed to be but a completely different beast they refuse or are incapable of understanding and facing it.
what makes you think the EU is dying? Support for the EU among the citizens of EU countries was last year found to be the HIGHEST recorded in the last 35 years!! And even in Britain twice as many people think the is a good thing compared to those who think it is a bad thing.
.. these fascinating lectures really should be broadcast at (prime time !) .. 7 - 10 pm on the terrestial main channel .. BBC 2, because they are very interesting and I think a lot of people would find them interesting, if only they could see them .. ;))
they should not just be broadcast only on the BBC Parliament channel ..
but please dont get me wrong ! I am very grateful that the Parliament channel broadcasts at all ..;))
The Germans, insisting -- as they inexplicably do -- on speaking German, have the word 'Schwerpunkt', for the pivot-point upon which events rotate. In an incredible, bravura performance, this lecture identifies a vast richness of these points in the conflict between the 5 major parties in the last general election, and of those between the electorate. Wonderful job.
I love these lectures
One of the best lecture series from Gresham
I've been really looking forward to this for a long time!
Thanks for uploading!
It is ironic that the Conservative and Unionist Party is opposed to one of the primary measures that could secure the Union: electoral reform. They ought not to place party before country.
I fail to see how electoral reform could achieve anything. If Scotland sent a few fewer SNP MPs to Westminster and a few more Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem (which would be the affect of PR) would it matter to most people?
Great series
Excellent analysis
Keep up the good work Agent V, and we'll have Scotland independent in time for scones and jam.
Awesome analysis ^-^
Bogdanor's identification of the nationalist v. open society cleavage in politics was prescient, coming as it did long before Brexit and Trump. But I don't see SNP as hostile to open society values, its nationalism is of the civic nationalism variety. SNP campaigned for the "Remain" side in the EU referendum.
Michael Riccardi totally agree. Both parties are nationalist but are different strands of nationalism
what do both of you think of the idea that SNP has to be more open to the world/europhile because scotland would fair much worse on ite own than england or a united britain would?
Excellent lecture, but I think Professor Bogdanor's comparison between the FPTP and Proportional results speak for themselves. Prty list proportional is the way to go, I think.
Labour responded by electing a pensioner to lead them , unlike skipping a generation as Bogdanor suggested. Ah well , ye ken noo. After destroying his opponents David Cameron ( Bogdanor's student ) destroyed himself and his pal Osborne.
Rather than make all of Commons proportional, just make 100 seats proportional, with parties getting 1 seat for every 1% of the total vote they get nationwide. This would leave 550 seats still under the first-past-the-post system, yet still allow significant minority parties like UKIP and the Greens to get a fairer share of seats.
Just assign all seats proportionally, FFS. Give people a first and second choice for the parties of their choosing. If one party receives less than 3,08% (=20 seats in house of commons) of the nation-wide vote, the same votes will instead be allocated to the second choices given (As to not have fringe parties in the house of commons).
It would be so easy, it boggles my mind.
@@roberttausig9170 Lots of people call for PR, no one wants the inevitable consequence of PR: hung Parliaments like 2010-15, coalition government, a minor party with maybe 8 or 10% of the vote calling the shots to larger parties and acting as kingmakers.
Also very few people want a government with the UK Lib Dems whose main issue is constitutional reforms, rather than the issues of interest to the public such as jobs, schools, the economy.
damn you Vernon!!
hi guys
Proportional representation is a terrible idea because it presumes that political parties have validity, whereas, in the modern political age, we are moving in the direction of individual politicians who have their own specific agendas, though they may loosely adhere to the principles of a political party. Who decides which members of the party will represent those voters who voted for a party line? --- invariably the party insiders. As Hayek pointed out, in all bureaucratic organizations, the worst rise to the top because they are sychophants. Ultimately what society requires is the Classical Liberalism of the old British Liberal party and Thomas Jefferson, only even more free-market. Only Libertarianism (Classical Liberalism) is based on a sound political philosophy --- the sanctity of the Rights of the Individual over and above the State. Thatcher was halfway there, but nowhere near radically capitalist enough.
You perhaps give away that you are an American. Thomas Jefferson isn't even a name over here, no one has remotely heard of the supposedly liberal principles he stood for. And all that monarchy-bashing of the Jeffersonian Republicans would get nowhere here.
despite his closing statement this entire lecture comes across as incredibly speculative and biassed. It lacks the understanding necessary in a political climate where everybody has very different opinions. When you describe the voting of today based off a quite trivial date of 1945 it presumes that choice of a party is based upon the history of a party since then. I don't know how that doesn't seem ridiculous to him. Also I prefer 'Single Transferable Vote' to the 'Proportional Representation' as the later does not allow for majority party voters to have representatives within the area. The one thing I hope people learn to agree on soon is the fact that the thoughtless system we currently have in place does more harm than good to all of the parties involved and most importantly to those who voted.
I wish he would say "Twenty-fifteen" rather than "Two thousand and fifteen". In other lectures he has spoken of "Nineteen-fifteen" and not "One thousand, nine hundred and fifteen".
The UK people kick the can down the road. EU is dying, and the Brits look like Greeks except for the economy and the Sunny days of Greece.
Professor Vernon Bogdanor is fluffing his lips launched in an arid, boring and sterile narrative of the situation of the “political” system of the UK. Perhaps in audience are only those who believe in miracles and love the august speeches which bring no food on the table.
The Brits became lazy and brought their former colonies people to do the jobs they hate to do, and now complain of overcrowded health care system, thinning of the benefits they, some time ago, received and now go as fees in the expensive club that formed over Pas de Calais a few decades ago.
No the decline of the economy is not due to the EU, is due to the lack of British initiative, the lack of spine of the Brits now , when their empire collapsed and the lack of understanding that dynamics of the world is not what they believed to be but a completely different beast they refuse or are incapable of understanding and facing it.
what makes you think the EU is dying? Support for the EU among the citizens of EU countries was last year found to be the HIGHEST recorded in the last 35 years!! And even in Britain twice as many people think the is a good thing compared to those who think it is a bad thing.