Travel chaos as flights cancelled; Heathrow closed to all incoming flights

In uk.politics.misc wrote:
JOHN BENNETT wrote:
How the **** is that democracy?

I am not trying to defend it, but I will try to explain it. An
analogous situation would be that, if Margaret Thatcher wanted to have
a say in the process that determined who stood for election as a Labor
MP. Before she would be allowed to do this, she would have to make a
declaration to the electrions officials that she was a member of the
Labor Party Until she made a declaration that she had rejoined the
Conservative Party, she would not be able to participate officially in
choosing Conservative candidates. Even if she declared herself to be a

Your analogy makes *no* sense. The Labour Party kept and still keeps a
list of organisations membership of which is grounds for automatic
expulsion from the Labour Party.

Now, I have no idea if the Conservative party was/is on that list,
but if it were not, then she would be entitled to take part in
whatever selection process is in place in the Labour Party.

Joining the Labour Party on her part would not mean that she had
left the Conservative Party unless she resigned from it voluntarily,
was expelled, or simply failed to pay her membership.

It should be noted that in the UK few people actually belong to
political parties.

Axel

wrote:

In uk.politics.misc mrtravel wrote:


Er... why should a voter have to declare anything to the state about
which party or parties he belongs to... it is not incompatible with
democracy to belong to more than one political party or organisation.



Not all states require this. The issue is basically, in a lot of states,
the government is managing the process of determining of who the
candidatae for a party will be. The problem with that is you don't want
a bunch of Republicans voting for the weaker candidate for the Democrat
party. If the weaker Democrat wins, with the assistance of the
Republicans voting in the primary, then it gives the Republicans a
better chance of winning the "real" election.



How do candidates for a party in the UK get selected?


It is totally up to the party concerned. Some more or less have a list
of allowed candidates on a national list, others allow the local
constituency party to choose their candidate. Others might simply
appoint a candidate on the whim of the leader of the party.

A couple of important points are that a party is at liberty to refuse
people membership and that the government has no say in the internal
structure of parties and how they select candidates.

Party affiliation in the U.S. need not mean anything so
formal as "membership". One merely indicates, on the voter
registration form, the party one favors (and will presumably
vote for). Thus I can call myself "Democrat" or
"Republican" or "Libertarian" or "Green Party" or whatever
without ever actually JOINING anything, or paying dues, or
supporting it with anything but my vote.

wrote:
In uk.politics.misc mrtravel wrote:


Er... why should a voter have to declare anything to the state about
which party or parties he belongs to... it is not incompatible with
democracy to belong to more than one political party or organisation.



Not all states require this. The issue is basically, in a lot of states,
the government is managing the process of determining of who the
candidatae for a party will be. The problem with that is you don't want
a bunch of Republicans voting for the weaker candidate for the Democrat
party. If the weaker Democrat wins, with the assistance of the
Republicans voting in the primary, then it gives the Republicans a
better chance of winning the "real" election.



How do candidates for a party in the UK get selected?


It is totally up to the party concerned. Some more or less have a list
of allowed candidates on a national list, others allow the local
constituency party to choose their candidate. Others might simply
appoint a candidate on the whim of the leader of the party.

So, would you consider this to be better than letting the members of a
party selected the candidate and have government safeguards in place to
see it is done in a fair manner?

A couple of important points are that a party is at liberty to refuse
people membership and that the government has no say in the internal
structure of parties and how they select candidates.


People in the US are free to pick candidates in other ways.
Additionally, in many cases, the delegates at the National Convention do
not have to vote the way the state's population voted. You do
understand, the candidates are actually chosen at the National Convention?

In uk.politics.misc mrtravel wrote:
wrote:

How do candidates for a party in the UK get selected?

It is totally up to the party concerned. Some more or less have a list
of allowed candidates on a national list, others allow the local
constituency party to choose their candidate. Others might simply
appoint a candidate on the whim of the leader of the party.

So, would you consider this to be better than letting the members of a
party selected the candidate and have government safeguards in place to
see it is done in a fair manner?

Yes. If the members of the party don't like the selection method, they
are at liberty to start their own party and select their candidate
according to their own criteria. I see no reason for the governmnt to
be involved or to stipulate what is 'fair'.

Axel