[Politics] UKIP Last out turn off the light.

[happypig]

But there can't be that many drawing a salary?

I forgot to mention Paul 'Hillsborough' Nutter too.

For local councillors it's an "allowance". IIRC, for East Sussex county council it's about £11k a year just for being on the council, more if they have cabinet or other responsibilities. Plus a shitload of other allowances/expenses.
Keith Glazier (who is leader of the council and not, as you might think, a glazier) trousered nigh on £40 grand last year, for "serving" the community.
Claire Dowling attended SIX meetings, Steve Wallis attended ONE !
Who wouldn't want a bit of that ?

 

[Half Time Pies]

That's not what I'm saying at all. There'll be a large proportion of people voting for FPTP so for another system to get the two-thirds majority that Simster was talking about, it would have to be backed by just about everybody else. But we know that wouldn't be the case, there are eight other systems each with their own adherents.

You're assuming that if someone was a supporter of AV, for example, they'd automatically support STV but I don't believe that would be the case. Yes, most would but you'd only need a small number who wouldn't to scupper any chance of FPTP of being overtaken,

Your original point was that the 2010 referendum result meant that the majority of people want FPTP which is not true. The main gripe of FPTP is that millions of voters have to pinch their nose and vote for the least worst of 2 candidates/ parties rather than the person or party that they would really like to represent them and some who live in constituencies where there are massive majorities don't even bother to go out and vote. Offering AV as the alternative in the referendum failed to address this and therefore people opted for the status quo.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Just a tip

I think that if you believe the 'Remoaner undemocratic loons seeking to thwart/reverse Brexit' are the ones to worry about then I think you will be sadly mistaken. It won't be them that force the second vote.

It will be the Tory party's democratically elected representatives of the people. They're the ones who once the deal is finalised, won't go ahead without a second vote .

I'm not worried about them as I don't think they will succeed. Are you talking about the already promised vote in parliament or a second referendum that according to HMG and the official opposition isn't going to happen?

 

[RandyWanger]

This guy is funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHebBuYmANc

 

[JC Footy Genius]

In a democracy anyone can call for whatever they like, whenever they like. They will only get it if a majority of elected members are in favour and they would only win a second referendum if the majority of people voted with them. If they won, it would be because the will of enough of the people would have changed. They are not being undemocratic, they are expressing their right to free speech. You have the right not to listen to them, but you don't get to stop them from trying.

Luckily for you, the currently elected government has repeatedly stated that they will not have a second vote and are enacting the actions suggested by the result of the non-binding referendum and subsequent parliamentary vote to start the process to leave. There is little parliamentary support for a second referendum. Members of the two largest parties who may be in favour fear the punishment that could follow at the ballot box. Although our democracy is representative, some elected members have voted against their own beliefs because of the evidence they have of the potential unpopularity of their view among their electorate. This is evidence of democracy in action. The Liberal Democrats and the old leaders of New Labour have in parliamentary terms, very little to lose, so are able to state their real opinions, whilst also playing to their base.

Nobody is being undemocratic, just disagreeing with each other. That is what happens and will continue to happen in a democracy.

Why do you keep stating the obvious as if it's contentious or being challenged? Perhaps going on about free speech or claiming I'm trying to silence them (how could i ?) is just a diversionary tactic. They can argue their case and I can criticise them ... freedom of speech. It's inherently undemocratic if the will of the majority is not enacted after free and fair elections. The Cameron Government promised to enact the referendum choice of the electorate, our current government was elected on manifesto commitments to fulfil this promise, the official opposition stood on a similar platform. I wouldn't call having the main poltical parties respecting and seeking to enact the democratic will of the electorate 'luck'. It's their democratic duty to fulfill their promises/manifesto commitments.

People vote the majority decision is then enacted that is what happens in this democracy and long may it continue (for all our sakes).

 

[WATFORD zero]

I'm not worried about them as I don't think they will succeed. Are you talking about the already promised vote in parliament or a second referendum that according to HMG and the official opposition isn't going to happen?

I didn't realise that HMG and the official opposition said a second referendum wasn't going to happen - It most certainly, surely, unquestionably, undoubtedly, positively, absolutely, definitely won't happen then, will it

Those politicians willl just push ahead with whatever they have negotiated taking all the credit or blame

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I didn't realise that HMG and the official opposition said a second referendum wasn't going to happen - It most certainly, surely, unquestionably, undoubtedly, positively, absolutely, definitely won't happen then

If your really convinced it's going to happen perhaps you should go large down the bookies ... kerching!

 

[pb21]

People vote the majority decision is then enacted

Unless it becomes apparent that the people no longer want it enacted.

It wouldn't be very democratic to do something that the people don't want, despite previously wanting it, sounds very dictatorial to me.

 

[Stato]

Why do you keep stating the obvious as if it's contentious or being challenged? Perhaps going on about free speech or claiming I'm trying to silence them (how could i ?) is just a diversionary tactic. They can argue their case and I can criticise them ... freedom of speech. It's inherently undemocratic if the will of the majority is not enacted after free and fair elections. The Cameron Government promised to enact the referendum choice of the electorate, our current government was elected on manifesto commitments to fulfil this promise, the official opposition stood on a similar platform. I wouldn't call having the main poltical parties respecting and seeking to enact the democratic will of the electorate 'luck'. It's their democratic duty to fulfill their promises/manifesto commitments.

People vote the majority decision is then enacted that is what happens in this democracy and long may it continue (for all our sakes).

Speaking of stating the obvious: The decision of the majority can change. There is nothing undemocratic about trying to change people's minds.

If those asking for a second vote change the mind of those in power (which they won't) there would be another vote and things could change.

There is nothing wrong in terms of democracy with this being voted on ad-infinitum. There would have been nothing wrong with Cameron setting a requirement for turnout or majority for the referendum. This was done for the Welsh and Scottish Indpendence votes of the 1970s. He didn't and the government accepted the advice of the majority who voted and had a vote of parliament to make it binding. There would be something wrong if the government refused to act upon the will of parliament after a majority vote, but that has not happened. We are in the process of leaving. Anybody arguing that this should change will have to go through due democratic process to alter this in the same way that those who campaigned for a referendum did. Were they successful, your requirement that will of the majority be enacted would not be at risk. The will of the majority would have changed.

 

[Gwylan]

Your original point was that the 2010 referendum result meant that the majority of people want FPTP which is not true. .

How do you work that out? 68% of the voters elected to keep it. Admittedly, that's not quite the same as voting for it but if the EU referendum had been in stay in, then it would be widely accepted that people had voted to stay in the EU (rather than not voted to leave).

And I maintain, although we have no way of proving it, that if the vote had been FPTP v STV, then FPTP would still have won ... and quite comfortably too. The fact that the vast majority of Tory voters and most Labour voters would be in favour of FPTP would count for a lot.

And, to answer Sim's point, there's no way that STV would gain two-thirds of the vote.