Have you seen him in a proper debate? Of course he is gentle when no-one dares to confront him, but you see a different character when someone does. Eg. Search for debates with Andrew Neil and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
06:15 Grayling erroneously attributes an internet meme to WS Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" The attribution to WSC was debunked in Langworth's "Churchill by Himself". First known appearance of this claim in a 1992 usenet post.
sorry: I wrote my answer bellow into the wrong place. The "Democracy" is not working fine. Not only because of the whip system etc. But more fondamently because the so called "representative democracy" is not a democracy (not power to the people). Grayling is however not trying to make it a democracy. On the contrary.
If he wants to "break the grip of the party machine," he's going to need to mention the "first past the post" system. I hope that's in the book. In the current system, whoever receives the most votes wins, and that is the only thing that matters. In a race between two runners, it is good for determining the winner. But a race between three or more people has flaws, in a way like using a scale to compare three things. More than two candidates is not a one-on-one race, so the scale is not going to work right. Third parties drag one of the other ones down (unless you're lucky enough to have the votes coming from both sides equally). So the result of the "democratic" election is luck and a perverse handicapping more than the representation of the people's will. This has insidious consequences for party control. The fix is to use a ballot method where you number your choices (or leave blank), and your one vote moves down the list as your first choices are eliminated. If you had a large independent group in a population, wouldn't it be right to factor in their leanings even if their first choice candidate didn't win? Wouldn't it be a better representation of the people's will? Our system keeps the parties entrenched because Third parties cannot build up steam due to the negative (spoiler) effect. This makes the parties complacent and gives them less incentive to represent us. What if voters could vote how they want and trust that it wouldn't hurt their side? You want to put trust in the system? What if people knew the voting was reflecting their population and was not being skewed by some weird spoiler effect (compounding over time) and held hostage by the main parties? It kind of defeats the argument that "people voted for that" when we were only presented with choices from two complacent parties. This (fixable) issue could be as important as money in politics. After all, If you can't have third parties, then there will be party domination even after money is out of politics. Look up CGP GREY's Alternative Vote videos to learn about it.
A step by step destruction of most his his words.. Political researching and marketing has been done all along, since long before the internet. It was done in the form of articles in magazines and newspapers targeted at particular groups. As for the prediction that remain would win, that was predicted by all the polls including those attached to the remain campaign. Thomas Paine ("The Rights of Man") was conspicuous by his abscence from Grayling's list of great figures in democracy. I was not surprised becuase the EU of which Grayling is a fanatical supporter, is directly against the main principle of the book, and is an actively anti-democratic organisation. Grayling lies.. 1. With regard to the "resitricted franchise", that was selected by a pro-remain government, and the resitriction was that applied to a normal election. It was not brought about by Brexitiers. 2. In addition it was NOT advisory. The Prime minister David Cameron stood outside No.10 and announced that it would not be advisory and would be honored before it took place. 3. The grossly misnamed EU "Parliament", the only bit which is elected, has no "Legal Initiative" that means it cannot modify, create or scrap any law or directive. It has no real power, and even that part has some secret ballots. So it is far less democratic than the UK. Furthermore, more legislation is made by the Judiciary and the Commission and most of that does not go through parliament at all. 4. The UK has lost sorviegnty to the EU in the sense that it accepts directives and laws without recourse and it fines UK citizens when they break those laws. Even though by common sense they are innoccent. Grayling cares??? With regard to those left out, such as the UK fishermen "thrown under the bus" for the "greater good" when we joined the EEC and the poor towns and inner cities "thrown under the bus" by the EU... Grayling was against a referendum, he would have denied these people a voice, he would have been happy to carry on leaving them in a desperate situation and throw another group under the bus for the EU. He is furious that the British refused to play the elitist game.... Despite all that, the speech did contain some well delivered pearls of knowledge and wisdom. I fully agree with him that first pass the post is very undemocratic.
Thank you, Dr Grayling, for all the lessons of wisdom that you deliver in your gentle manner. They are much needed and appreciated.
Have you seen him in a proper debate? Of course he is gentle when no-one dares to confront him, but you see a different character when someone does. Eg. Search for debates with Andrew Neil and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
A.C. Grayling starts at 03:00
I do appreciate the mind behind this lovely presentation and I never want to spoil the serious concept. But I have to say that hair looks so great.
I entirely agree with Professor Grayling!
I love how Grayling describes the insidiousness of political manipulation of big data like a very intelligent and kindly 4th form history teacher.
06:15 Grayling erroneously attributes an internet meme to WS Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" The attribution to WSC was debunked in Langworth's "Churchill by Himself". First known appearance of this claim in a 1992 usenet post.
Good stuff. I'm very positive about the future, just some teething problems with new technology we have to work out.
Dr. Grayling begins at three minutes.
Democracy is working fine, specifically because it doesn't go this guys way all of the time.
That's also my impression.
sorry: I wrote my answer bellow into the wrong place. The "Democracy" is not working fine. Not only because of the whip system etc. But more fondamently because the so called "representative democracy" is not a democracy (not power to the people). Grayling is however not trying to make it a democracy. On the contrary.
A beautiful mind. His secular bible is in the mail as I type.
If he wants to "break the grip of the party machine," he's going to need to mention the "first past the post" system. I hope that's in the book.
In the current system, whoever receives the most votes wins, and that is the only thing that matters. In a race between two runners, it is good for determining the winner. But a race between three or more people has flaws, in a way like using a scale to compare three things.
More than two candidates is not a one-on-one race, so the scale is not going to work right. Third parties drag one of the other ones down (unless you're lucky enough to have the votes coming from both sides equally). So the result of the "democratic" election is luck and a perverse handicapping more than the representation of the people's will.
This has insidious consequences for party control. The fix is to use a ballot method where you number your choices (or leave blank), and your one vote moves down the list as your first choices are eliminated.
If you had a large independent group in a population, wouldn't it be right to factor in their leanings even if their first choice candidate didn't win? Wouldn't it be a better representation of the people's will?
Our system keeps the parties entrenched because Third parties cannot build up steam due to the negative (spoiler) effect. This makes the parties complacent and gives them less incentive to represent us.
What if voters could vote how they want and trust that it wouldn't hurt their side?
You want to put trust in the system? What if people knew the voting was reflecting their population and was not being skewed by some weird spoiler effect (compounding over time) and held hostage by the main parties?
It kind of defeats the argument that "people voted for that" when we were only presented with choices from two complacent parties.
This (fixable) issue could be as important as money in politics. After all, If you can't have third parties, then there will be party domination even after money is out of politics.
Look up CGP GREY's Alternative Vote videos to learn about it.
I love how Americans don't understand his very cynical and sarcastic British sense of humour lol
I do declare that my Facebook account is deleted
SOUND !
Microphone please!!
Looks like a clone of Heseltine
"A fool's voice is known by multitude of words."
Written like a genuine fool.
He must spend a LOT of time on his hair
He's a Professor, he has ALOT of time.
A step by step destruction of most his his words..
Political researching and marketing has been done all along, since long before the internet. It was done in the form of articles in magazines and newspapers targeted at particular groups.
As for the prediction that remain would win, that was predicted by all the polls including those attached to the remain campaign.
Thomas Paine ("The Rights of Man") was conspicuous by his abscence from Grayling's list of great figures in democracy. I was not surprised becuase the EU of which Grayling is a fanatical supporter, is directly against the main principle of the book, and is an actively anti-democratic organisation.
Grayling lies..
1. With regard to the "resitricted franchise", that was selected by a pro-remain government, and the resitriction was that applied to a normal election. It was not brought about by Brexitiers.
2. In addition it was NOT advisory. The Prime minister David Cameron stood outside No.10 and announced that it would not be advisory and would be honored before it took place.
3. The grossly misnamed EU "Parliament", the only bit which is elected, has no "Legal Initiative" that means it cannot modify, create or scrap any law or directive. It has no real power, and even that part has some secret ballots. So it is far less democratic than the UK. Furthermore, more legislation is made by the Judiciary and the Commission and most of that does not go through parliament at all.
4. The UK has lost sorviegnty to the EU in the sense that it accepts directives and laws without recourse and it fines UK citizens when they break those laws. Even though by common sense they are innoccent.
Grayling cares???
With regard to those left out, such as the UK fishermen "thrown under the bus" for the "greater good" when we joined the EEC and the poor towns and inner cities "thrown under the bus" by the EU...
Grayling was against a referendum, he would have denied these people a voice, he would have been happy to carry on leaving them in a desperate situation and throw another group under the bus for the EU. He is furious that the British refused to play the elitist game....
Despite all that, the speech did contain some well delivered pearls of knowledge and wisdom. I fully agree with him that first pass the post is very undemocratic.
The electoral vote in the USA defeated neo Marxism.
Stanley Cates lol the popular vote is true democracy the electoral college is a fast
Trump 2020