[Oldmanmatt]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.

Of course! Bloody little shites shirking their democratic responsibilities!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about those on the electoral register and not allowed to vote.
How many? I'm thinking about those working overseas but were not allowed to vote.

I was thinking more about those who couldn't be bothered. Apathy in these matters is the scourge of democracy.
Who knows, now, what the "will of the people" is in reality. Ever the complaint of the losing side, as the winners have no need to ask...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jfdm]

Where was the explicit rejection during the democratic vote on the single issue of EU membership?

That's the point - there's been a half-assed attempt at direct democracy & as a result our elected representatives have stopped doing the job that is required of them under a representative democracy.

As for other policy areas - what is this not affecting. On the economy the Tories won (narrowly) the last election on the basis that Austerity would eventually start to workand lower the National debt. Immediately post the referendum & the internal coup that followed,  that was ditched in favour of , to all intents & purposes the economic policy of the defeated Labour party.  Foreign policy - again all out of the window now. Domestic policy - all constitutional agreements between Westminster & the devolved govts - ripped up.

I completely agree and understand what you are saying here imunro.
It seems as though the old democratic ways have been hijacked.
I had a quick look at ed stone pledges and a glance at con manifesto contents page, didn't fancy reading it. The EU was not mentioned.
Although the manifestos aren't worth jack.

And there in lies the problem, it seems like a political class stitch up.
The referendum was advisory but is now gospel.
Teresa only consulting parliament after a legal challenge.
Judges labelled anti patriotic, they were only doing their job.
Labour (the opposition) supporting the Cons.
The leader of the Labour Party dysfunctional.
MPs who are pro remain "going against the will of the people."
It is almost like a one party state.

Concerned that Brexit will give Cons a blank cheque to rewrite policies, laws etc to favour themselves rather than ordinary joe pubLic. Why would the politicians be so generous to helps us out.

The language so far has been nationistic and with May, Bozzer and Fox looking at Trump for inspiration eerily like his. Stronger borders, red white and blue Brexit, control immigration, experts who needs experts etc.

As for economic forecasts, the only one that is accurate to any degree is tomorrow's weather forecast and even then it is sometimes wrong.

The John Harris piece shows how tough life can be in the uk.
We should be talking about improving inequality and making things better for all of us.
Regardless of were we come from.

[mrjonathanr]

What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.

~37.4% of the eligible electorate voted for monumental constitutional change. Now adopted.

Is that representational democracy?

[shark]

We should be talking about improving inequality

Can't see that catching on round here

[Offwidth]

I agree entirely. But, in playground talk, I didn't start it.
The fury and sounds of despair coming from people claiming we're facing economic disaster - and there were/are many in the media, politics, academia and business only too ready to offer their opinion forecasting doom - inevitably leads those who don't share their opinion to celebrate any good news that runs counter to this.

Those 'Economic disaster' predictions from politicians were actually significant economic decline predictions and based on assuptions we would leave quicker (we haven't left yet). Even so, part of it came true as the pound is down about 15-20% which distorts our economic figures, GDP isn't as good as it looks nor especially is the FTSE 100 as so many companies list assets held in other countries and currencies. Debt is rising rapidly. We are still in complete denial about the complexity of what is to come. Academia is in terrible trouble as we prop up underfunding by recruiting overseas students included in the immigration stats we want to reduce, and we have scared the 16% of our academic staff from the EU and 12% from outside the EU.. Anyone who likes being European (irrespective of the crap from its beurocracy) has lots to cry over as well.

History gives some reasons for long term optimism but they are more based in unpredicted new developments from science than politics; a stable world without too much protectionism is helpful. History also shows the fall of many empires (the modern globalised economy could be regarded as that).

[chris j]

~37.4% of the eligible electorate voted for monumental constitutional change. Now adopted.

Is that representational democracy?

Are you saying that those who couldn't or couldn't be bothered to vote or have chosen not to be on the electoral role should be automatically counted as frustrated 'No' voters? Adopting a minimum threshold for participation might be desirable but all the referenda in the UK to date have been the basis of a simple majority only.

[mrjonathanr]

I am saying a little over one third of the electorate does not represent the majority view of the community. To initiate massive constitutional change off a minority view cannot sensibly be said to represent the 'will of the people' as nearly two thirds of the electorate have not expressed that view.

Constitutional change in many other countries has - quite sensibly I believe- a higher bar than FPTP.

[jfdm]

We should be talking about improving inequality

Can't see that catching on round here

yes you are right, what I should have said was tackle/ or reduce inequality.
Not improve it 
I hope most got the jist.
By the time I realised I couldn't modify, so just left it.
Shark should I redraft it beat poetry style...

[dave]

We should be working to reduce inequality, but since UKIPs and the Tories are funded by millionaire taxdodgers and media barons don't expect a Brexit that does anything other than let the rich get off scot free whilst screwing over the poor and vulnerable.

[tomtom]

What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.

~37.4% of the eligible electorate voted for non binding monumental constitutional change. Now adopted.

Is that representational democracy?

[Offwidth]

We should be working to reduce inequality, but since UKIPs and the Tories are funded by millionaire taxdodgers and media barons don't expect a Brexit that does anything other than let the rich get off scot free whilst screwing over the poor and vulnerable.

You mean you can't trust popularist politicians to protect society from the arrogant and greedy bankers?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/trump-dodd-frank-act-executive-order-financial-regulations

[mrjonathanr]

~37.4% of the eligible electorate voted for monumental constitutional change. Now adopted.

Is that representational democracy?

Are you saying that those who couldn't or couldn't be bothered to vote or have chosen not to be on the electoral role should be automatically counted as frustrated 'No' voters? Adopting a minimum threshold for participation might be desirable but all the referenda in the UK to date have been the basis of a simple majority only.

Sorry, just re-read your post. I am not suggesting that ineligible voters should be counted, quite the opposite: 37.4% of the electorate means 37.4% of those registered to vote.

There is nothing in my post about co-opting the eligible abstainers as 'remain' or second guessing their preferences. I said they didn't vote to leave and that 37.4% of the electorate did.

Surely that is not contentious? It is simply a matter of fact.

Edit-'abstainers', for clarity

[petejh]

Sorry, just re-read your post. I am not suggesting that ineligible voters should be counted, quite the opposite: 34.7% of the electorate means 34.7% of those registered to vote.

There is nothing in my post about co-opting the eligible abstainers as 'leave' or second guessing their preferences. I said they didn't vote to remain and that 34.7% of the electorate did.

Surely that is not contentious? It is simply a matter of fact.

I've turned your quote around (in bold) - because it isn't contentious the other way either.

[mrjonathanr]

Okay pjh, I'll explain it again.

37.4% voted to leave. The rest of the electorate didn't.

I think the bar should be set higher for constitutional change.

[mrjonathanr]

As a footnote- of course your reframing is not contentious, it's just a statistical relationship, you're just repeating my point back to me.

[petejh]

You don't need to explain.

So..

The turnout for the EU referendum was 72.2%. That's a very good turnout.
The only higher turnout in recent times is the Scottish Independence referendum with a turnout of 85%. I didn't hear anyone complain the result wasn't a fair representation.

How high a turnout would there need to be to meet your requirements?

And, I also haven't heard anybody complaining that the Scottish Referendum result - of 55% against independence and 45% for, on a turnout of 85% - was too close a margin to be conclusive. It is also a question a major constitutional change.

Where would you ''set the bar' differently, if 52% to 48%, on a turnout of 72%, isn't enough for you?

I'm assuming you must have figures in mind.

[mrjonathanr]

Hi Pete, your post seems a bit confused.

The vote in Scotland rejected constitutional change, it didn't enact it.  Nor is a margin of 10% trivial. Or 8.5% of the electorate, if you prefer.

As to the bar's height and my having precise figures for you, sorry to disappoint.

I am not convinced a simple referendum is sufficient.  Nor does the USA for example, with a system of congressional votes and state ratifications variously requiring majorities of two thirds or three quarters.

Australia makes voting compulsory and referenda are only called after both houses of voted for the change.

I think the issue important enough that it should be put to a vote by parliament as well as the country and that the mechanism itself should be arrived at with more sophisticated consultation than a few of posts on a forum.

I don't consider myself an expert on these mechanisms and don't feel I have 'the answer'. I don't believe rejecting an obviously unsatisfactory mechanism requires me to.

You are welcome to differ.

[petejh]

That isn't my point.

The point is that it was deemed suitable to hold a referendum that might have led to Scotland leaving the UK (major constitutional change as you put it ). The result doesn't matter - the act of agreeing to a referendum that could possibly lead to major change is what matters.


The UK parliament voted on 9th June 2015 to hold the EU referendum, remember. They voted 544 - 53 in favour. They didn't have to vote in favour of holding an in/out referendum. Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems all in favour. The only party against (ironically) were the SNP.

You can hardly say parliament hasn't been involved in the process - it voted to start the process!

Your argument comes across as a severe case of sour grapes.

[jfdm]

That isn't my point.

The point is that it was deemed suitable to hold a referendum that might have led to Scotland leaving the UK (major constitutional change as you put it ). The result doesn't matter - the act of agreeing to a referendum that could possibly lead to major change is what matters.


The UK parliament voted on 9th June 2015 to hold the EU referendum, remember. They voted 544 - 53 in favour. They didn't have to vote in favour of holding an in/out referendum. Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems all in favour. The only party against (ironically) were the SNP.

You can hardly say parliament hasn't been involved in the process - it voted to start the process!

Your argument comes across as a severe case of sour grapes.

All correct but it was advisory, I am sure that MP's and Cameron would have been much more circumspect if the  binding part had been tagged onto the referendum question in Parliament.
Farage admitted that it was advisory only.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html

[galpinos]

The point is that it was deemed suitable to hold a referendum that might have led to Scotland leaving the UK (major constitutional change as you put it ). The result doesn't matter - the act of agreeing to a referendum that could possibly lead to major change is what matters.

I think the result does matter. I believe that constitutional change should require a significant majority from the voting electorate (I'm afraid those who can't be bothered to vote deserve what they get). Staying with the status quo is just that, sticking with what we have got so a 50.5/49.5 'majority' for the status quo would be fine.

I don't think we should have referendums though.........

[mrjonathanr]

Your argument comes across as a severe case of sour grapes.

Dismissing an argument ad hominem, impressive.

Repeatedly I have explained why I think that the referendum result is unsound and each time your response focuses on something tangential or just silly -34.7% vs 37.4% to repeat my point back to me?  Grow up.

It doesn't read like you have understood as well as you claim to.

[jfdm]

The pound now worthless (due possibly to Brexit), we can't even afford to keep important works of art/treasures here. The pound will soon be like Monopoly money, anything not nailed down will be sold off.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/feb/06/national-gallerys-30m-pontormo-bid-rejected-due-to-sterling-slump

[Oldmanmatt]

Even I think you're exaggerating a tad now...

[emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[petejh]

Your argument comes across as a severe case of sour grapes.

Dismissing an argument ad hominem, impressive.

Repeatedly I have explained why I think that the referendum result is unsound and each time your response focuses on something tangential or just silly -34.7% vs 37.4% to repeat my point back to me?  Grow up.

It doesn't read like you have understood as well as you claim to.

I don't think saying that your arguments come across as a case of sour grapes classifies as a proper ad hominem, but am happy to be proven wrong.

The 34.7 / 37.4 - that's just the stats!?

[finbarrr]

Your argument comes across as a severe case of sour grapes.

Dismissing an argument ad hominem, impressive.

Repeatedly I have explained why I think that the referendum result is unsound and each time your response focuses on something tangential or just silly -34.7% vs 37.4% to repeat my point back to me?  Grow up.

It doesn't read like you have understood as well as you claim to.

I don't think saying that your arguments come across as a case of sour grapes classifies as a proper ad hominem, but am happy to be proven wrong.

The 34.7 / 37.4 - that's just the stats!?

i only check into this thread every now and then, but to see it's on page 78 and petejh is standing strong makes me want to give some points for just sticking it out