• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Gutter Boy said:
To a timetable society agrees on - general elections roughly every 5 years, referendums roughly every 30 years.
Click to expand...
Again, no.
I reiterate, if things change significantly or head in an unpalatable direction, you raise your collective voice.
Democracy is to represent the good of the nation, that is very clearly fluid not static.
To suggest you can only have a voice every 5 years moves from democracy to a cursory jesture. (It is also a significant limitation of the FTPA; probably because the FTPA asserts Govt will at least act within the appx boundaries of what they were elected upon)
 
monkeybarry said:
Again, no.
I reiterate, if things change significantly or head in an unpalatable direction, you raise your collective voice.
Democracy is to represent the good of the nation, that is very clearly fluid not static.
To suggest you can only have a voice every 5 years moves from democracy to a cursory jesture. (It is also a significant limitation of the FTPA; probably because the FTPA asserts Govt will at least act within the appx boundaries of what they were elected upon)
Click to expand...


And to follow your logic:

Leave win a vote, Remain stomp and cry and actively block action of the outcome until they force another vote, so
Remain win a vote, Leave stomp and cry and actively block action of the outcome until they force another vote, so
Leave win a vote, Remain stomp and cry and actively block action of the outcome until they force another vote, so
Remain win a vote, Leave stomp and cry and actively block action of the outcome until they force another vote, so
Leave win a vote, Remain stomp and cry and actively block action of the outcome until they force another vote, so
Remain win a vote, Leave stomp and cry and actively block action of the outcome until they force another vote, so
Leave win a vote, Remain stomp and cry and actively block action of the outcome until they force another vote, so
Remain win a vote, Leave stomp and cry and actively block action of the outcome until they force another vote, so
Leave win a vote, Remain stomp and cry and actively block action of the outcome until they force another vote, so
Remain win a vote, Leave stomp and cry and actively block action of the outcome until they force another vote, so....

At which point do we respect a decision and follow it through?
 
monkeybarry said:
Again, no.
I reiterate, if things change significantly or head in an unpalatable direction, you raise your collective voice.
Democracy is to represent the good of the nation, that is very clearly fluid not static.
To suggest you can only have a voice every 5 years moves from democracy to a cursory jesture. (It is also a significant limitation of the FTPA; probably because the FTPA asserts Govt will at least act within the appx boundaries of what they were elected upon)
Click to expand...

The fundamental indicator of a democracy is something called 'the turnover test'. I.e. when your side loses, you give up power and let the victors implement their programme for the pre-determined period. You don't seek to frustrate that, rather you reflect and over the course of the opposition period rebuild the positive case for your argument.

I'd have a lot more respect for remainers if they focused on making a positive case for federalisation, with a view to convincing the population to rejoin the EU in the 2040s or 50s. That was what Europhobes did for 40 years after the first referendum.
 
@nayimfromthehalfwayline - the Brexit situation perfectly summed up.

Now I wasn't talking about Brexit specifically, I was talking about a process of democracy.
However, to link it back to Brexit, it is clear we have been following it through for over three years and made zero progress in even agreeing a withdrawal agreement, let alone a future relationship.
All that has been achieved is an increase in anger and horrible attitudes. (Mainly born from frustration)
So a reset is definitely needed.
That is probably an election with parties setting out new strategies.
But as this discussion started by talking about opinion polls, there is a significant voice (using a measure we often use) that indicates the current paths needs a re-evaluation.

As far as how we solve the situation you described above - I don't think we can. Brexit is undeliverable (Perhaps it is with a reset and more mature politics), leaving only two options; No Deal Vs Revoke.
We have got to that point after over three years of trying. So a referendum on that basis seems the only way forward.
Personally I think No Deal would be disaster. The electorate may disagree. And if so, so beit.

None of the above mean voices should be silenced however. That is how democracy works. Democracy should be noisy.
 
monkeybarry said:
@nayimfromthehalfwayline - the Brexit situation perfectly summed up.

Now I wasn't talking about Brexit specifically, I was talking about a process of democracy.
However, to link it back to Brexit, it is clear we have been following it through for over three years and made zero progress in even agreeing a withdrawal agreement, let alone a future relationship.
All that has been achieved is an increase in anger and horrible attitudes. (Mainly born from frustration)
So a reset is definitely needed.
That is probably an election with parties setting out new strategies.
But as this discussion started by talking about opinion polls, there is a significant voice (using a measure we often use) that indicates the current paths needs a re-evaluation.

As far as how we solve the situation you described above - I don't think we can. Brexit is undeliverable (Perhaps it is with a reset and more mature politics), leaving only two options; No Deal Vs Revoke.
We have got to that point after over three years of trying. So a referendum on that basis seems the only way forward.
Personally I think No Deal would be disaster. The electorate may disagree. And if so, so beit.

None of the above mean voices should be silenced however. That is how democracy works. Democracy should be noisy.
Click to expand...

Have we been following it through at all though? Seems to me the process to stall and frustrate and ultimately over turn started immediately.

We had a referendum. I think people are sick of that word, but really need to give it due consideration. As GB said - its a once in a generation thing. Thats momentus. And it hasnt been respected at all.

The electorate may disagree. And if so, so beit.

Why have that view now (in the general, not specifically you), and not 3 years ago?
 
Gutter Boy said:
The fundamental indicator of a democracy is something called 'the turnover test'. I.e. when your side loses, you give up power and let the victors implement their programme for the pre-determined period. You don't seek to frustrate that, rather you reflect and over the course of the opposition period rebuild the positive case for your argument.

I'd have a lot more respect for remainers if they focused on making a positive case for federalisation, with a view to convincing the population to rejoin the EU in the 2040s or 50s. That was what Europhobes did for 40 years after the first referendum.
Click to expand...

No. Firstly, the job of our MPs is to act in the national interest. Not "surrender" to the opposition. That's why we have a Parliamentary system we do and not a presidential system.

Re; Brexit, opinion polls are indicating that the current position being pursued by the Govt is not inline with the one upon which they were elected. Thus, a re-examination via the electorate is appropriate.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Have we been following it through at all though? Seems to me the process to stall and frustrate and ultimately over turn started immediately.

We had a referendum. I think people are sick of that word, but really need to give it due consideration. As GB said - its a once in a generation thing. Thats momentus. And it hasnt been respected at all.

The electorate may disagree. And if so, so beit.

Why have that view now (in the general, not specifically you), and not 3 years ago?
Click to expand...
Because we were not ready parliamentarily or as an electorate to have the referendum.
The last few years have essentially been a degree program in Parliamentary democracy.
 
monkeybarry said:
Because we were not ready parliamentarily or as an electorate to have the referendum.
The last few years have essentially been a degree program in Parliamentary democracy.
Click to expand...

We are less ready now. If Parliament was a joke then, its a bad dad joke in a Christmas cracker now. One where the punchline doesnt even make sense.

And regardless of readiness, it happened. That momentus event happened, with an unprecedented outcome. That cannot simply be dismissed.

Imagine if, lets just play hypothetical, but imagine if Leave won the referendum vote, and all sides of Parliament worked toward the best Brexit possible. How different might things be now?

Because to my eye, all that really happened was denial of the result and then desperation to stay with the EU because it makes their lives easy. Ive not once felt that decision was respected.

To the degree that the PR/Optics around it all is that Remain is the right outcome that was unfairly robbed from the people (you know, the people who voted leave...)
 
monkeybarry said:
No. Firstly, the job of our MPs is to act in the national interest. Not "surrender" to the opposition. That's why we have a Parliamentary system we do and not a presidential system.

Re; Brexit, opinion polls are indicating that the current position being pursued by the Govt is not inline with the one upon which they were elected. Thus, a re-examination via the electorate is appropriate.
Click to expand...

In the last GE, 80% of the population voted for manifestos which pledged to 'deliver Brexit'.
 
galeforce said:
but also one's which ruled out no deal, which the current government are desperately trying to achieve
Click to expand...

Did they actually 'rule out no deal' though, or did they simply pledge to achieve a deal if possible?

Genuine question, I don't know the answer for certain off the top of my head. Though I'd be very surprised if they (the tories, particularly) did explicitly 'rule out no deal' as you say.
 
Last edited:
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Have we been following it through at all though? Seems to me the process to stall and frustrate and ultimately over turn started immediately.

We had a referendum. I think people are sick of that word, but really need to give it due consideration. As GB said - its a once in a generation thing. Thats momentus. And it hasnt been respected at all.

The electorate may disagree. And if so, so beit.

Why have that view now (in the general, not specifically you), and not 3 years ago?
Click to expand...

This is the key point for me.

We need to differentiate between true, legitimate dissention in response to changing events over time and immediate toy-throwing at not liking a particular result, without any actual change in circumstance. In my view the post-referendum scenario has been far more of the latter than the former.
 
Last edited:
StephenH said:
Sad to see this.
Former Conservative MP Rory Stewart standing down
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49931937
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me if he came back once Brexit is complete and the focus returns to domestic agendas. Actually a bit like Johnson did - stepping out into the mayoral role for a few years when he was a bit too much of a distraction for Cameron. When the Brad Pitt biopic of him comes out he's going to be serious box office (literally)

His sincerity and refusal to flimflam is very refreshing
 
Gutter Boy said:
It wouldn't surprise me if he came back once Brexit is complete and the focus returns to domestic agendas. Actually a bit like Johnson did - stepping out into the mayoral role for a few years when he was a bit too much of a distraction for Cameron. When the Brad Pitt biopic of him comes out he's going to be serious box office (literally)

His sincerity and refusal to flimflam is very refreshing
Click to expand...

I wonder if has football coaching badges?;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back