[Politics] Brexit

[Baldseagull]

Just reading the Insurance industry justifying the massive hikes in premiums of late, apparently the average cost of a claim has shot up, because parts are more expensive and take longer to arrive, so courtesy cars, garage storage fees etc. are higher. Thanks Brexit.

 

[Hamilton]

Sadly, I fear there are still too many stupid people who would vote for a harder Brexit. We’re out for a generation, and by which time it will be too late.

The only way is to get rid of this joke of a government, wake up to the lies we are told by owners of the media and hedge fund owners, and change the country for the better - for all!

Yes, I said stupid. Yes, they are stupid.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is referring to the Covid enquiry but relevant.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The first time you ask the people, you can take a simple majority. The next time, if nothing much has altered, you need a more decisive figure.

I don't understand your logic at all. Arguably, Leave won because it was a coalition of those voters motivated to stop free movement / immigration, those against whatever the government of the day stood for and those that were beguiled by the lies of Boris, Farage and the red bus. Those people were always going to comprise 40% of the vote, so you only needed 20% of the remaining 60% to think Brexit was actually a good thing in itself to get past 50%.

If you had a referendum now there would be less uncertainty - we know about the upside (none) and the downside (plenty) so people will be having a much purer vote in the issue of membership itself. Therefore, if you set the bar at 60% and Rejoin won 59-41% - meaning we remain Brexited - it would be an utter travesty (again!).

 

[Randy McNob]

I don't understand your logic at all. Arguably, Leave won because it was a coalition of those voters motivated to stop free movement / immigration, those against whatever the government of the day stood for and those that were beguiled by the lies of Boris, Farage and the red bus. Those people were always going to comprise 40% of the vote, so you only needed 20% of the remaining 60% to think Brexit was actually a good thing in itself to get past 50%.

If you had a referendum now there would be less uncertainty - we know about the upside (none) and the downside (plenty) so people will be having a much purer vote in the issue of membership itself. Therefore, if you set the bar at 60% and Rejoin won 59-41% - meaning we remain Brexited - it would be an utter travesty (again!).

There should never be a referendum on anything ever again, direct democracy doesn't work, that's why we have a representative parliamentary democracy. The general public cannot be trusted to make the right decisions, they would generally vote on emotion, beliefs, preconceptions or prejudices that are not aligned with the best interests of the country as a whole, that's why we elect a chamber of politicians to properly scrutinise these issues and collectively come to the correct consensus.

 

[Lever]

The pros and cons of referenda:

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/referendums.aspx. this.....

'Above all, the key principle of referendums for any government is this: if you call one, you had better be certain you are going to win. Because if you don’t, the political costs for both the leaders responsible and the country at large are often vast'.

 

[HillBarnTillIDie]

There should never be a referendum on anything ever again, direct democracy doesn't work, that's why we have a representative parliamentary democracy. The general public cannot be trusted to make the right decisions, they would generally vote on emotion, beliefs, preconceptions or prejudices that are not aligned with the best interests of the country as a whole, that's why we elect a chamber of politicians to properly scrutinise these issues and collectively come to the correct consensus.

There should never be a referendum on anything ever again, direct democracy doesn't work, that's why we have a representative parliamentary democracy. The general public cannot be trusted to make the right decisions, they would generally vote on emotion, beliefs, preconceptions or prejudices that are not aligned with the best interests of the country as a whole, that's why we elect a chamber of politicians to properly scrutinise these issues and collectively come to the correct consensus.

On the flip side if your point..
I happen to think political systems doesn’t work either and a mixture of the two would be a better way to govern.

 

[Simster]

On the flip side if your point..
I happen to think political systems doesn’t work either and a mixture of the two would be a better way to govern.

I fail to see how a referendum is ever going to help as it is usually too blunt an instrument. They give the electorate a decision that they are ill-equipped to make. Brexit is the obvious example as nobody really knew what Brexit they were voting for, never mind the outrageous lies that the battle lines were drawn on that people have not been held to account for. I'd say independence referendums are the only fair ones, and even they are flawed.

But you're right regarding our political system. It's massively out-of-date and needs changing. We continue to see majority governments formed with a minority of votes and it is completely unjust. Then you've got an unelected house of Lords. That needs changing too, especially when you consider the calibre of some recent additions.

 

[A1X]

It is one of the great ironies that many of those who voted Leave would refer to themselves as patriots, yet they have done more to damage the UK than basically anyone else

 

[A mex eyecan]

I think the whole way the candidates are selected and hence ultimately the types of MP elected. There should only be one reason why anyone is unable to be selected to become an MP and that is them having the desire to ever be one.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Correct. We'll need our own EFTA-style arrangement that runs alongside EFTA. No way the EU will let us back in for at least a decade from the point we realign. Too much disruption and uncertainty.

I fail to see how a referendum is ever going to help as it is usually too blunt an instrument. They give the electorate a decision that they are ill-equipped to make. Brexit is the obvious example as nobody really knew what Brexit they were voting for, never mind the outrageous lies that the battle lines were drawn on that people have not been held to account for. I'd say independence referendums are the only fair ones, and even they are flawed.

But you're right regarding our political system. It's massively out-of-date and needs changing. We continue to see majority governments formed with a minority of votes and it is completely unjust. Then you've got an unelected house of Lords. That needs changing too, especially when you consider the calibre of some recent additions.

The main thing wrong with our political system is the electorate. As I have said countless times, the people get the governments they deserve.

I am not even going to begin to engage with attempts to find a system that stops the party with the biggest vote forming a government.

However I understand that the way the constituencies are constructed it is possible to become the party with the largest number of seats without being the party with the largest share of the vote. That needs to be fixed, if the case.

 

[Simster]

The main thing wrong with our political system is the electorate. As I have said countless times, the people get the governments they deserve.

I am not even going to begin to engage with attempts to find a system that stops the party with the biggest vote forming a government.

However I understand that the way the constituencies are constructed it is possible to become the party with the largest number of seats without being the party with the largest share of the vote. That needs to be fixed, if the case.

This is absolute bollocks. You may have noticed Scotland have 48 SNP seats out of 59. They also voted two thirds remain. Where is the government they deserve? Or just look at the percentage of votes cast: we don't deserve a Tory government because we didn't vote for it. And remember, of that 40% or whatever voting Tory, some only voted to get Brexit done, and some only voted to keep Corbyn out. It's not a ringing endorsement of our political system.

And maybe you should engage with attempts to find a system that stops the party with the biggest vote forming a government, because that isn't a reasonable definition of democracy. If the largest party was communist or fascist, had 20% of the vote and was despised by everybody else then why should they get to form a government? Equally, a democratic alternative to the House Of Lords might be nice but you've ignored that.

As it is, our system absolutely ensures the Tories and Labour get to dominate power, and they attract help from powerful unelected influencers to maintain the status quo in exchange for God-knows-what.

 

[CheeseRolls]

It is one of the great ironies that many of those who voted Leave would refer to themselves as patriots, yet they have done more to damage the UK than basically anyone else

As the arguments in favour turned to dust. Supporters including many on here insisted that sovereignty was the unshakeable justification for Brexit. A bit like "ha ha it is just Dom being Dom" no one mentions it any more.

We have a prime minister which no one in the country voted for and no one in the Conservative party voted for.
In a time of international strife around the world, no one knows who the Foreign Secretary is. I bet even their own mother has to google it to check.
We have a Home Secretary who carries on like a disgruntled faction in the Student Union, as she is incapable of doing anything or working constructively with anyone.

None of them do interviews unless you count GB News (which I don't). Nothing goes through Parliament, nothing is legislated and it is all the fault of the woke Judiciary/Civil Service/Police/Universities/Schools/Churches/Media etc etc etc etc.

Is this what it was all for?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This is absolute bollocks. You may have noticed Scotland have 48 SNP seats out of 59. They also voted two thirds remain. Where is the government they deserve?

And maybe you should engage with attempts to find a system that stops the party with the biggest vote forming a government, because that isn't a reasonable definition of democracy. If the largest party was communist or fascist, had 20% of the vote and was despised by everybody else then why should they get to form a government? Equally, a democratic alternative to the House Of Lords might be nice but you've ignored that.

As it is, our system absolutely ensures the Tories and Labour get to dominate power, and they attract help from powerful unelected influencers to maintain the status quo in exchange for God-knows-what.

Bollocks? Hmmmm.....Thanks for that

The Scotland situation has got something to do with the fact that outside of Scotland we don't vote SNP, so if SNP is what Scotland wants, they are disenfranchising themselves. But what you are advocating, logically, is that Scotland should be granted independence. Perhaps they should have a referendum. Oh.....hang on .

I like the fact that the party with the biggest vote forms the government. I think that's better than the party with the smallest vote forming the government. I know we all hate to lose but when we do we simply have to suck it up and hope the vote goes our way the next time. That's democracy.

I am not particularly bothered about the house of Lords. I blame the tories, and the mugs who voted for them, for our shit show of a nation. I don't see that the Lords had much of a role in that. I am not enthusiastic about an elected second chamber (with real power) because we would end up like America, with people instinctively voting differently in each election, one chamber perpetually blocking the other, and stalemate. Inaction is a bigger problem in the UK than the tories, half the time. It has taken the cumulative neglect of the decades since the war to put us where we are now. Sacking some lords and bishops may be cathartic but it would largely be irrelevant.

Finally, if only Labour had 'powerful influencers' to persuade 'white van man', 'soccer mum', 'Student Grant' and other demographics to vote for them. I can only assume from your pain that you are a liberal. Good luck with the PR quest

 

[Simster]

Bollocks? Hmmmm.....Thanks for that

The Scotland situation has got something to do with the fact that outside of Scotland we don't vote SNP, so if SNP is what Scotland wants, they are disenfranchising themselves. But what you are advocating, logically, is that Scotland should be granted independence. Perhaps they should have a referendum. Oh.....hang on .

I like the fact that the party with the biggest vote forms the government. I think that's better than the party with the smallest vote forming the government. I know we all hate to lose but when we do we simply have to suck it up and hope the vote goes our way the next time. That's democracy.

I am not particularly bothered about the house of Lords. I blame the tories, and the mugs who voted for them, for our shit show of a nation. I don't see that the Lords had much of a role in that. I am not enthusiastic about an elected second chamber (with real power) because we would end up like America, with people instinctively voting differently in each election, one chamber perpetually blocking the other, and stalemate. Inaction is a bigger problem in the UK than the tories, half the time. It has taken the cumulative neglect of the decades since the war to put us where we are now. Sacking some lords and bishops may be cathartic but it would largely be irrelevant.

Finally, if only Labour had 'powerful influencers' to persuade 'white van man', 'soccer mum', 'Student Grant' and other demographics to vote for them. I can only assume from your pain that you are a liberal. Good luck with the PR quest

You said "we get the government we deserve" which is nonsense. You haven't addressed the fact that Scotland doesn't get the government it votes for. Oh and the independence vote would have won easily if it had been held after Brexit. You also seem to justify the biggest minority party being allowed to form a government is ok because at least it isn't the smallest minority party doing so. What sort of straw man argument is that?

And finally you say you're not bothered about the House of Lords being unelected - literally the paragraph after saying "that's democracy". Seems to show absolutely no self awareness.

Finally, it really doesn't matter what my politics are. Unless I'm someone who would automatically vote Tory or Labour regardless of who represent them at the time, it doesn't actually matter what my politics are - I'm let down by the voting system.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You said "we get the government we deserve" which is nonsense. You haven't addressed the fact that Scotland doesn't get the government it votes for. Oh and the independence vote would have won easily if it had been held after Brexit. You also seem to justify the biggest minority party being allowed to form a government is ok because at least it isn't the smallest minority party doing so. What sort of straw man argument is that?

And finally you say you're not bothered about the House of Lords being unelected - literally the paragraph after saying "that's democracy". Seems to show absolutely no self awareness.

Finally, it really doesn't matter what my politics are. Unless I'm someone who would automatically vote Tory or Labour regardless of who represent them at the time, it doesn't actually matter what my politics are - I'm let down by the voting system.

I think it's time that I let you know that it's you that's writing nonsense. That is a complete load of after timing, illogical rubbish; it misrepresents what I wrote, and isn't worthy of serious rebuttal. I'm not sure what's got into you (someone I have hitherto regarded as sensible)

 

[Simster]

I think it's time that I let you know that it's you that's writing nonsense. That is a complete load of after timing, illogical rubbish; it misrepresents what I wrote, and isn't worthy of serious rebuttal. I'm not sure what's got into you (someone I have hitherto regarded as sensible)

What you mean is, you can't debate sensibly so you're flouncing. Plus ca change. Normally comes out in the form of some tedious grandiose statement about your ignore list, so your flounce modus operandi is clearly changing.

I mean, which bit of what I've written is nonsense? You're the one who justifies allowing a minority party to form a government by saying "at least it's not the smallest minority party". I mean, really? Is that the best you can do?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What you mean is, you can't debate sensibly so you're flouncing. Plus ca change. Normally comes out in the form of some tedious grandiose statement about your ignore list, so your flounce modus operandi is clearly changing.

I mean, which bit of what I've written is nonsense? You're the one who justifies allowing a minority party to form a government by saying "at least it's not the smallest minority party". I mean, really? Is that the best you can do?

I am not flouncing.

Let's step aside from what you think is right, just and fair. How do you imagine that your preferred electoral system will come about? I assume you prefer some sort of PR. I'd like to know, since you brought it up, how PR would deliver independence for Scotland. It won't deliver any more SNP MPs in the British parliament. Thee only way the SNP will be able to obtain the system that allows their voice to be effective nationally would be to win an independence referendum, surely? Do you really think UK wide PR would deliver what the NP wants? How?

However, your first sentence to me in this 'discussion' was 'rubbish'. I think you have been needlessly rude and intemperate, and eventually I have dished a bit back. I am happy to discuss how change might be brought about, but I'm unmoved by the endless emoting from some about how unfair it all is.

I am not 'justifying' FPTP because the party that gets the most seats wins power. I am asking how a party can form a government if it does not return the most seats. I am also asking a separate question: how can a party form a government if another party has more votes than them?

You don't say but presumably you would prefer a coalition, since if you bin FPTP then it becomes extremely hard for a single party to obtain enough seats to forma a government alone. If so, that's fine. It happens not to be something I want. However if the nation swung behind PR then so be it.

The problem (for you) is that PR is supported primarily by the parties (like the liberals) that can never win power under the present system, so the unpersuaded like me suspect that of course they would say that, wouldn't they?

So rather than getting rude and aggressive, and turning the discussion into some sort of competition, why not try to persuade me to support PR?

 

[WATFORD zero]

The main thing wrong with our political system is the electorate. As I have said countless times, the people get the governments they deserve.

I am not even going to begin to engage with attempts to find a system that stops the party with the biggest vote forming a government.

However I understand that the way the constituencies are constructed it is possible to become the party with the largest number of seats without being the party with the largest share of the vote. That needs to be fixed, if the case.

Have I understood this correctly ? You think that FPTP could be improved further by making it a straight referendum with a simple majority for whether red or blue runs the entire country

And before you start talking about Labour and Conservatives, you do realise that getting rid of FPTP will split both of those power driven, unelected coalitions of desperately differing people into their constituent parts actually representing genuinely different political views for the electorate to choose between.

Do you want the Labour party that backs a ceasefire or one that backs Israel's current policy ? Do you want a Conservative party that is going to continue the current rate of channel crossings and ship them straight to Rwanda or one that wants to invest in properly processing asylum seekers and getting backlogs down. Because you are not going to get those choices with FPTP.

No more Johnson or Corbyn choices, a bit like grown up politics is conducted elsewhere in the world

 

[Simster]

I am not flouncing.

Let's step aside from what you think is right, just and fair. How do you imagine that your preferred electoral system will come about? I assume you prefer some sort of PR. I'd like to know, since you brought it up, how PR would deliver independence for Scotland. It won't deliver any more SNP MPs in the British parliament. Thee only way the SNP will be able to obtain the system that allows their voice to be effective nationally would be to win an independence referendum, surely? Do you really think UK wide PR would deliver what the NP wants? How?

However, your first sentence to me in this 'discussion' was 'rubbish'. I think you have been needlessly rude and intemperate, and eventually I have dished a bit back. I am happy to discuss how change might be brought about, but I'm unmoved by the endless emoting from some about how unfair it all is.

I am not 'justifying' FPTP because the party that gets the most seats wins power. I am asking how a party can form a government if it does not return the most seats. I am also asking a separate question: how can a party form a government if another party has more votes than them?

You don't say but presumably you would prefer a coalition, since if you bin FPTP then it becomes extremely hard for a single party to obtain enough seats to forma a government alone. If so, that's fine. It happens not to be something I want. However if the nation swung behind PR then so be it.

The problem (for you) is that PR is supported primarily by the parties (like the liberals) that can never win power under the present system, so the unpersuaded like me suspect that of course they would say that, wouldn't they?

So rather than getting rude and aggressive, and turning the discussion into some sort of competition, why not try to persuade me to support PR?

I can't be arsed with you to be honest. Five minutes ago, you didn't want to engage as you were flouncing. Now you do. Make your mind up. You take offense to the most trivial things - here you first accused me of being "rude and aggressive" simply for calling bollocks on your assertion that "the voting system is not the issue, it is the electorate". I've fully explained why I think that is rubbish and called out your hypocrisy on democracy.

I am not 'justifying' FPTP because the party that gets the most seats wins power. I am asking how a party can form a government if it does not return the most seats. I am also asking a separate question: how can a party form a government if another party has more votes than them?

At no point did you ever ask that. What you actually said was "I am not even going to begin to engage with attempts to find a system that stops the party with the biggest vote forming a government" which sounds intransigent and is nothing but a straw man argument - because nobody ever said a system should be designed to do that. I gave the example of communists or fascists being the largest minority party, and you've ignored it.

Yes of course I'd prefer a coalition. Government by consensus is FAR more healthy than a government doing as it pleases with less than half the population supporting it.

So get off your high horse, you're not on the moral high ground. And grow a slightly thicker skin whilst you're at it.