[Politics] Worst PM since Thatcher

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Do you believe the Tories of the day would have kept us out of it?


Because the above suggests otherwise

Quite. The tories were even more gung ho about backing 'our American friends'. Had Blair not joined in we would have absolutely had a tory government voted in next time for labour's 'shameless abandonment of our greatest ally'.

"war crimes" my arse.

When did @Lenny Rider turn into wet-lettuce peacenik liberal CND anti-American communistic yoghurt knitter?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If I remember correctly, the promise of a referendum was in the Conservative manifesto in 2015 before the general election … they cobbled it together to keep the right of the party in line pre election- labour SNP and liberal were all remain parties but somehow the tories won the election

And as for 60-40 ?? Why stop there if we’re going to be blatantly undemocratic how about 75-25 !!

It wasn't undemocratic when we voted to join the EU using a 60:40 rubric. It was wise, and safeguarded. It is much more undemocratic to enact life-changing societal changes on a knife-edge 50:50 basis.

I hope to f*** any euthanasian referendum isn't decided on a 50%+ basis or I will doubtless find myself carted off for a lethal injection.

 

[Rdodge30]

It wasn't undemocratic when we voted to join the EU using a 60:40 rubric. It was wise, and safeguarded. It is much more undemocratic to enact life-changing societal changes on a knife-edge 50:50 basis.

I hope to f*** any euthanasian referendum isn't decided on a 50%+ basis or I will doubtless find myself carted off for a lethal injection.

Just because you approved of the 60-40 vote doesn’t make it right or democratic HWT

Personally I’m not in favour of referendums at all, if we had a show of hands on who wants to pay less tax I think I know how it would go!!

 

[pb21]

And as for 60-40 ?? Why stop there if we’re going to be blatantly undemocratic how about 75-25 !!

Supermajority votes arent undemocratic, they are widely used in Govermental/legislative/constituational scenarios.

Supermajority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rdodge30]

Supermajority votes arent undemocratic, they are widely used in Govermental/legislative/constituational scenarios.

Supermajority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In situations where a super majority is required to change constitutional laws- not undemocratic

In a straight yes or no vote in a once in a lifetime referendum whereby if the supermajority is not achieved then we simply go with the status quo ….. not democratic at all

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Just because you approved of the 60-40 vote doesn’t make it right or democratic HWT

Personally I’m not in favour of referendums at all, if we had a show of hands on who wants to pay less tax I think I know how it would go!!

Oh, don't get me wrong. I absolutely hate referenda. It is the last refuge of the charlatan politician, lacking the parliamentary support or powers of persuasion to enact a policy, reaching for the rabble to push it through. Having referenda is the worst form of political lunacy after having a dictatorship. Opinion poll politics.

We absolutely would have the death penalty if we had a referendum on it. Even Thatcher backed off that because politicians (most of them) understand the reality of such a thing (albeit some of the current tory rabble are in favour, and I can see at some point a referendum on bringing back hanging being part of their manifesto).

All I am saying is that if you have do have a referendum (and I don't see that you do) then at least make it hard for the change option to win. That's what we did when we joined the EU.

(Incidentally the Brexit gang emerged because the terms of our EU engagement changed, ironically because tory governments allowed this to happen and didn't engage with EU committees. That was all under Thatcher. Then the bat went mad and try to get some deals, which she did, but as with the Falklands, 'war' was needed only because she took her eye off the ball - and it didn't provide a long term solution and we eventually left the EU, albeit with the absurd 2% majority on a 50:50 vote).

 

[Rdodge30]

All I am saying is that if you have do have a referendum (and I don't see that you do) then at least make it hard for the change option to win. That's what we did when we joined the EU.

I thought we joined Europe in 1973 …and then held a referendum in 1975 where you needed 60% to leave? If I’m wrong then I apologise but if I’m right that stinks

 

[MJsGhost]

It wasn't undemocratic when we voted to join the EU using a 60:40 rubric. It was wise, and safeguarded. It is much more undemocratic to enact life-changing societal changes on a knife-edge 50:50 basis.

I hope to f*** any euthanasian referendum isn't decided on a 50%+ basis or I will doubtless find myself carted off for a lethal injection.

I could easily be wrong here (I am FAR too young, so wasn't alive let alone interested in politics then), but didn't the 1975 referendum just require a simple majority (though two thirds voted YES anyway)?

EDIT: I just asked ChatGPT (so it could well still be wrong!):
No, the 1975 EU referendum in the UK did not require a super majority. The question posed to the electorate was whether the UK should remain part of the European Community (Common Market), which the UK had joined in 1973. The decision was based on a simple majority of the votes cast, and the outcome was a decisive "Yes" to remain, with 67.2% voting in favor and 32.8% voting against. There was no requirement for a super majority, which would have necessitated a higher threshold, such as two-thirds or three-quarters of the votes, to pass the decision.

FURTHER EDIT:
Some guy blogging on the LSE website agrees with ChatGPT that
"In the 1975 EEC referendum a simple majority was required"

The risks of simple majority referendums: learning from Quebec

Britain voted to leave the EU in a simple majority referendum. Gordon Bannerman (University of Guelph-Humber) argues that it would have done better to follow Canada’s example. After Quebec na…

blogs.lse.ac.uk

 

[pb21]

In a straight yes or no vote in a once in a lifetime referendum whereby if the supermajority is not achieved then we simply go with the status quo ….. not democratic at all

I would be 'democratic'. Obviously it wouldnt if the goalposts changed after the event, but not if thats what was known beforehand.

Ultimately democracy simply means that the people hold the power, and they would with a 50/50 vote or a 60/40 one.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I thought we joined Europe in 1973 …and then held a referendum in 1975 where you needed 60% to leave? If I’m wrong then I apologise but if I’m right that stinks

We did. The referendum in 75 was to Remain or Leave. I'm not sure about the percentage needed but it was higher than 60% in any case.

 

[Commander]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I absolutely hate referenda. It is the last refuge of the charlatan politician, lacking the parliamentary support or powers of persuasion to enact a policy, reaching for the rabble to push it through. Having referenda is the worst form of political lunacy after having a dictatorship. Opinion poll politics.

We absolutely would have the death penalty if we had a referendum on it. Even Thatcher backed off that because politicians (most of them) understand the reality of such a thing (albeit some of the current tory rabble are in favour, and I can see at some point a referendum on bringing back hanging being part of their manifesto).

All I am saying is that if you have do have a referendum (and I don't see that you do) then at least make it hard for the change option to win. That's what we did when we joined the EU.

(Incidentally the Brexit gang emerged because the terms of our EU engagement changed, ironically because tory governments allowed this to happen and didn't engage with EU committees. That was all under Thatcher. Then the bat went mad and try to get some deals, which she did, but as with the Falklands, 'war' was needed only because she took her eye off the ball - and it didn't provide a long term solution and we eventually left the EU, albeit with the absurd 2% majority on a 50:50 vote).

When you look back on it, it is absolutely INSANE that something as complicated as leaving the EU was decided by the general public. I genuinely don't think I spoke to a single person at the time, leave or remain, who had a genuine, deep understanding of the inner working and the consequences of it. In fact, I'm not even sure I have since. Everyone thought they did, but very, very few people did. At the time, I was a fairly staunch Remainer, but was broadly in favour of the referendum because I thought Remain would win, but it would be close enough to make the EU shit themselves and make some serious reforms, before the whole thing fell apart.

The general public are FAR too ill-informed and ignorant to make that kind of decision either way. It was a ridiculous idea. And was the beginning of the total mess the place is now in with the complete polarisation of politics.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

We did. The referendum in 75 was to Remain or Leave. I'm not sure about the percentage needed but it was higher than 60% in any case.

I could easily be wrong here (I am FAR too young, so wasn't alive let alone interested in politics then), but didn't the 1975 referendum just require a simple majority (though two thirds voted YES anyway)?

EDIT: I just asked ChatGPT (so it could well still be wrong!):
No, the 1975 EU referendum in the UK did not require a super majority. The question posed to the electorate was whether the UK should remain part of the European Community (Common Market), which the UK had joined in 1973. The decision was based on a simple majority of the votes cast, and the outcome was a decisive "Yes" to remain, with 67.2% voting in favor and 32.8% voting against. There was no requirement for a super majority, which would have necessitated a higher threshold, such as two-thirds or three-quarters of the votes, to pass the decision.

FURTHER EDIT:
Some guy blogging on the LSE website agrees with ChatGPT that
"In the 1975 EEC referendum a simple majority was required"

The risks of simple majority referendums: learning from Quebec

Britain voted to leave the EU in a simple majority referendum. Gordon Bannerman (University of Guelph-Humber) argues that it would have done better to follow Canada’s example. After Quebec na…

blogs.lse.ac.uk

It wasn't undemocratic when we voted to join the EU using a 60:40 rubric. It was wise, and safeguarded. It is much more undemocratic to enact life-changing societal changes on a knife-edge 50:50 basis.

I hope to f*** any euthanasian referendum isn't decided on a 50%+ basis or I will doubtless find myself carted off for a lethal injection.

It was proposed to introduce a requirement, but not included in the referendum act. A simple majority (i.e. 50% of the votes cast) was required.

"The issue was debated at Commons report stage, when Peter Emery (Conservative) moved a new clause to declare the result null and void unless there was a turnout of 60% of the eligible electorate and at least a two-thirds l majority 'yes' or 'no'.4 In face of Government resistance, the new clause was withdrawn."

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02809/

Edit: This quote and the document accessed via the link relate to the 1975 EEC referendum.

 

[Rdodge30]

When you look back on it, it is absolutely INSANE that something as complicated as leaving the EU was decided by the general public. I genuinely don't think I spoke to a single person at the time, leave or remain, who had a genuine, deep understanding of the inner working and the consequences of it. In fact, I'm not even sure I have since. Everyone thought they did, but very, very few people did. At the time, I was a fairly staunch Remainer, but was broadly in favour of the referendum because I thought Remain would win, but it would be close enough to make the EU shit themselves and make some serious reforms, before the whole thing fell apart.

The general public are FAR too ill-informed and ignorant to make that kind of decision either way. It was a ridiculous idea. And was the beginning of the total mess the place is now in with the complete polarisation of politics.

100%

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It was proposed to introduce a requirement, but not included in the referendum act. A simple majority (i.e. 50% of the votes cast) was required.

"The issue was debated at Commons report stage, when Peter Emery (Conservative) moved a new clause to declare the result null and void unless there was a turnout of 60% of the eligible electorate and at least a two-thirds l majority 'yes' or 'no'.4 In face of Government resistance, the new clause was withdrawn."

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02809/

So Cameron actively thwarted an attempt to recreate the original legitimacy criteria (60%, and a minimum turnout) and insisted on a simple majority of votes cast?

He's an even bigger arsehole than I thought

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

So Cameron actively thwarted an attempt to recreate the original legitimacy criteria (60%, and a minimum turnout) and insisted on a simple majority of votes cast?

He's an even bigger arsehole than I thought

No, that quote and the document linked to relates to the 1975 referendum. I've added a note to the post to make that clearer.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

When you look back on it, it is absolutely INSANE that something as complicated as leaving the EU was decided by the general public. I genuinely don't think I spoke to a single person at the time, leave or remain, who had a genuine, deep understanding of the inner working and the consequences of it. In fact, I'm not even sure I have since. Everyone thought they did, but very, very few people did. At the time, I was a fairly staunch Remainer, but was broadly in favour of the referendum because I thought Remain would win, but it would be close enough to make the EU shit themselves and make some serious reforms, before the whole thing fell apart.

The general public are FAR too ill-informed and ignorant to make that kind of decision either way. It was a ridiculous idea. And was the beginning of the total mess the place is now in with the complete polarisation of politics.

Precisely.

One of my pals is a businessman who voted leave becuse he had been persuaded that EU 'red tape, was thwarting his enterprise. He tells me now that red tape has increased, and he feels he was lied to.

And you're right. Nobody knew much of anything about the issues. My view was simply 'why destroy something without trying to improve it?' and 'why take a massive leap into the unknown when there is no compelling reason?'.

The noisiest of the leavers were drunk on a ludicrous rose-tinted vision of freedoms and sunny uplands, or like NSC's resident fool, Das Reich, simply intent on not having Johnny Foreigner have any say at all in any aspect of British Life. As if we now have the freedom to dictate trade terms with the EU, and 'control our borders'. Sniff that freedom. Unbelievable.

But anyway, I am not going to campaign to rejoin. I want to see the gammon suffer a bit first. I'm alright, Jack - why should I care?

 

[Biscuit]

The 17 people who voted Blair need their head examining.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

No, that quote and the document linked to relates to the 1975 referendum. I've added a note to the post to make that clearer.

OK. So who decided on the simple majority rubric in 2018 (or whenever the Great Self-immolation took place - I'm trying to forget), and why did nobody insist on greater rigour?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Each time I see this thread pop up, I can't help thinking that 'since Thatcher' is completely superfluous in the thread title. As one of the more mature posters on here Johnson, Cameron, Truss and Sunak are by far the worst PM's in my lifetime

 

[Milano]

It's not just the PMs is it. It's the cabinets full stop. MPs used to carry a certain amount of respect, they used to at least give out the aura of a statesperson, a professional leader. The last 10 years or so it's getting worse and worse. Half the current lot I wouldn't trust to run a bath.
I voted Cameron because I believe brexit was the most divisive, destructive polictical mistake in modern times and was completely uneccessary and the result of a set of overconfident, bordering on arrogant, few individuals.