It’s very hard to get a man to understand something when his argument depends on him not understanding it.
It's hard to get clarity when people are blowing smoke.
Let's not argue though, lets step through the arguments and find out where it is we disagree.
Do you agree that a pure democratic vote is generally thought of in such a way that participation implicitly suggests that you'll agree to be bound by the result?
Do you agree that the Brexit referendum wasn't of this pure type?
I'm assuming that you'll agree, but I'll await your reply.
The only question worth considering is why the referendum was not given direct binding effect. Why do you think that was?
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
@kle4 suggests that the nature of advisory referenda is well known. He may be right, but I hope you and he will forgive me if I'm not convinced.
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.
It’s very hard to get a man to understand something when his argument depends on him not understanding it.
It's hard to get clarity when people are blowing smoke.
Let's not argue though, lets step through the arguments and find out where it is we disagree.
Do you agree that a pure democratic vote is generally thought of in such a way that participation implicitly suggests that you'll agree to be bound by the result?
Do you agree that the Brexit referendum wasn't of this pure type?
I'm assuming that you'll agree, but I'll await your reply.
The only question worth considering is why the referendum was not given direct binding effect. Why do you think that was?
I don't know.
However you are avoiding my questions above in a very politician like way.
Not exactly. It must be treated very seriously. But if circumstances change or if the original prospectus turns out to be flawed, it can be looked at again.
Parliament overturning referendums has precedent, and recent ones at that.
Genuine question - which one(s)? It certainly isn't a UK wide one (yet). Are you referring to the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, which had a turnout requirement applied to it BEFORE the vote?
Not exactly. It must be treated very seriously. But if circumstances change or if the original prospectus turns out to be flawed, it can be looked at again.
Parliament overturning referendums has precedent, and recent ones at that.
Genuine question - which one(s)? It certainly isn't a UK wide one (yet). Are you referring to the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, which had a turnout requirement applied to it BEFORE the vote?
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
@kle4 suggests that the nature of advisory referenda is well known. He may be right, but I hope you and he will forgive me if I'm not convinced.
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.
But it's no more than a simple fact that the referendum wasn't binding.
One that you assented to by taking part in the referendum. Ignorance of the law is no defence ;-)
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting /Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
/blockquote>
And an election won by to support it at a general election.
Which is why need a change to our electoral system. A Lib Dem majority and revoke would be the end of FPTP. That's sealed it for me, I'm definitely voting Lib Dem. Two birds with one stone.
A LD majority may revoke er PR
The LDs are not going to win a majority so this is all irrelevant.
For now maybe not, in 10 or 15 yeae 2005
I cannot see the LDs pushing the Tories into third no but they might do that to Labour, indeed a recent poll had an anti Brexit LDs on 30% with Corbyn Labour on just 17% on a Labour Brexit Deal platform with the Tories on 24%.
According to Electoral Calculus that would give LDs 257, Tories 163, Labour 138.
Polls are one thing! Reality another! I Remember Labour on 22% in the GE campaign in 2010. They got 30% or very close. A lot of Labour voters will not vote anything but Labour. I live amungst people who vote Labour in this way. They will never vote Tory and if you lived their life neither would you!
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
I'm certain that a quiet soft-pedalling in certain constituencies happened in 2017. The comments from Kezia Dugdale before the election seemed to indicate that mindset was abound, and the literature distribution was reportedly quite uneven in a few parts of the country (I've heard a few examples but one example is Edinburgh South West, which neighbours a main Labour target and a separate main Lib Dem target apparently had very little unionist activity other than the Tories).
Lib Dems are just another bunch of Tories, hopefully both of them get their just desserts for trying to rig things. Be especially good if Swinson gets dumped, why they want a carpetbagger running the constituency from Bath is beyond me, the fake would get a nosebleed coming north to Scotland
Swinson could lose her Westminster seat and come back at Holyrood swiftly.
If I were LD I would have Swinson running for First Minister and leave Chuka to run for PM
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
@kle4 suggests that the nature of advisory referenda is well known. He may be right, but I hope you and he will forgive me if I'm not convinced.
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
I'm certain that a quiet soft-pedalling in certain constituencies happened in 2017. The comments from Kezia Dugdale before the election seemed to indicate that mindset was abound, and the literature distribution was reportedly quite uneven in a few parts of the country (I've heard a few examples but one example is Edinburgh South West, which neighbours a main Labour target and a separate main Lib Dem target apparently had very little unionist activity other than the Tories).
Lib Dems are just another bunch of Tories, hopefully both of them get their just desserts for trying to rig things. Be especially good if Swinson gets dumped, why they want a carpetbagger running the constituency from Bath is beyond me, the fake would get a nosebleed coming north to Scotland
Swinson could lose her Westminster seat and come back at Holyrood swiftly.
If I were LD I would have Swinson running for First Minister and leave Chuka to run for PM
What chance do you think there is of her coming to Scotland, zero.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
@kle4 suggests that the nature of advisory referenda is well known. He may be right, but I hope you and he will forgive me if I'm not convinced.
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.
But it's no more than a simple fact that the referendum wasn't binding.
One that you assented to by taking part in the referendum. Ignorance of the law is no defence ;-)
Boris even said if no better deal than the status quo could be negotiated we should remain!
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
@kle4 suggests that the nature of advisory referenda is well known. He may be right, but I hope you and he will forgive me if I'm not convinced.
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.
But it's no more than a simple fact that the referendum wasn't binding.
One that you assented to by taking part in the referendum. Ignorance of the law is no defence ;-)
Indeed, but I'm not challenging the referendum.
I did suggest that I thought that there was a degree of democratic obligation surrounding it, but Mr Meeks pointed out that it was advisory, and thus my argument is at least partially undermined.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
@kle4 suggests that the nature of advisory referenda is well known. He may be right, but I hope you and he will forgive me if I'm not convinced.
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.
But it's no more than a simple fact that the referendum wasn't binding.
One that you assented to by taking part in the referendum. Ignorance of the law is no defence ;-)
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would to the law.
Good luck in putting /Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
/blockquote>
And an election won by to support it at a general election.
Which is why need a change to our electoral system. A Lib Dem majority and revoke would be the end of FPTP. That's sealed it for me, I'm definitely voting Lib Dem. Two birds with one stone.
A LD majority may revoke er PR
The LDs are not going to win a majority so this is all irrelevant.
For now maybe not, in 10 or 15 yeae 2005
I cannot see the LDs pushing the Tories into third no but they might do that to Labour, indeed a recent poll had an anti Brexit LDs on 30% with Corbyn Labour on just 17% on a Labour Brexit Deal platform with the Tories on 24%.
According to Electoral Calculus that would give LDs 257, Tories 163, Labour 138.
Polls are one thing! Reality another! I Remember Labour on 22% in the GE campaign in 2010. They got 30% or very close. A lot of Labour voters will not vote anything but Labour. I live amungst people who vote Labour in this way. They will never vote Tory and if you lived their life neither would you!
In the Euro elections when the LDs got 20%, Labour got just 14%, even lower than the 17% they were on in that poll.
Of course Labour will always be there, especially in the big northern and midlands cities and the poorer parts of London.
However having lost their Scottish heartlands to the SNP and some of their Welsh vote to Plaid, losing their middle class vote in wealthier parts of London and the South to the LDs and losing much of their working class vote to the Brexit Party and even the Tories Labour has no god given right to remain the main alternative to the Tories. In an election or 2 they may not be
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
I'm certain that a quiet soft-pedalling in certain constituencies happened in 2017. The comments from Kezia Dugdale before the election seemed to indicate that mindset was abound, and the literature distribution was reportedly quite uneven in a few parts of the country (I've heard a few examples but one example is Edinburgh South West, which neighbours a main Labour target and a separate main Lib Dem target apparently had very little unionist activity other than the Tories).
Lib Dems are just another bunch of Tories, hopefully both of them get their just desserts for trying to rig things. Be especially good if Swinson gets dumped, why they want a carpetbagger running the constituency from Bath is beyond me, the fake would get a nosebleed coming north to Scotland
Swinson could lose her Westminster seat and come back at Holyrood swiftly.
If I were LD I would have Swinson running for First Minister and leave Chuka to run for PM
What chance do you think there is of her coming to Scotland, zero.
It’s very hard to get a man to understand something when his argument depends on him not understanding it.
It's hard to get clarity when people are blowing smoke.
Let's not argue though, lets step through the arguments and find out where it is we disagree.
Do you agree that a pure democratic vote is generally thought of in such a way that participation implicitly suggests that you'll agree to be bound by the result?
Do you agree that the Brexit referendum wasn't of this pure type?
I'm assuming that you'll agree, but I'll await your reply.
The only question worth considering is why the referendum was not given direct binding effect. Why do you think that was?
I don't know.
However you are avoiding my questions above in a very politician like way.
Why do you think that is?
Because you’re asking a series of irrelevant questions and avoiding the only relevant one.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
@kle4 suggests that the nature of advisory referenda is well known. He may be right, but I hope you and he will forgive me if I'm not convinced.
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.
But it's no more than a simple fact that the referendum wasn't binding.
One that you assented to by taking part in the referendum. Ignorance of the law is no defence ;-)
This is well trodden ground. Yes, it was advisory. Yes, political promises were made that the government would enact the decision. They have. It is parliament, sovereign over government, which has not.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
@kle4 suggests that the nature of advisory referenda is well known. He may be right, but I hope you and he will forgive me if I'm not convinced.
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.
Does Manchester have a mayor?
Andy Burnham
And was there a referendum on whether to have a mayor in Manchester?
It's 2038. The UK, in accordance with new EU rules, has reintroduced the death penalty. However, those rules allow an opt out for member states, which the UK did not take up but could have if it wanted.
A party wins the 2039 election promising to hold an (advisory) referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty and asks the question whether to keep it, or repeal it.
Repeal wins 52% to 48%.
The Government shouts, "Only kidding, it was only advisory. We only said it to win more votes." and fails to uphold the referendum. Later, someone is wrongly sent to the gallows.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
Lib Dems are just another bunch of Tories, hopefully both of them get their just desserts for trying to rig things. Be especially good if Swinson gets dumped, why they want a carpetbagger running the constituency from Bath is beyond me, the fake would get a nosebleed coming north to Scotland
Swinson could lose her Westminster seat and come back at Holyrood swiftly.
If I were LD I would have Swinson running for First Minister and leave Chuka to run for PM
What chance do you think there is of her coming to Scotland, zero.
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
I'm certain that a quiet soft-pedalling in certain constituencies happened in 2017. The comments from Kezia Dugdale before the eist activity other than the Tories).
Lib Dems are just another bunch of Tories, hopefully both of them get their just desserts for trying to rig things. Be especially good if Swinson gets dumped, why they want a carpetbagger running the constituency from Bath is beyond me, the fake would get a nosebleed coming north to Scotland
Swinson could lose her Westminster seat and come back at Holyrood swiftly.
If I were LD I would have Swinson running for First Minister and leave Chuka to run for PM
What chance do you think there is of her coming to Scotland, zero.
If Swinson lost her Scottish Westminster seat in a November general election to the SNP, the next Holyrood election in 2021 would be earlier than the next UK general election in 2024 and she could get a regional list seat at Holyrood even if she did not win a constituency seat
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
@kle4 suggests that the nature of advisory referenda is well known. He may be right, but I hope you and he will forgive me if I'm not convinced.
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.
But it's no more than a simple fact that the referendum wasn't binding.
One that you assented to by taking part in the referendum. Ignorance of the law is no defence ;-)
This is well trodden ground. Yes, it was advisory. Yes, political promises were made that the government would enact the decision. They have. It is parliament, sovereign over government, which has not.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
Lib Dems are just another bunch of Tories, hopefully both of them get their just desserts for trying to rig things. Be especially good if Swinson gets dumped, why they want a carpetbagger running the constituency from Bath is beyond me, the fake would get a nosebleed coming north to Scotland
Swinson could lose her Westminster seat and come back at Holyrood swiftly.
If I were LD I would have Swinson running for First Minister and leave Chuka to run for PM
What chance do you think there is of her coming to Scotland, zero.
Spoke at the LibDem fringe on animal welfare today - it's been an odd quirk that they're the only major party without an AW group or MPs who have seemed especially interested, but this was the launch of such a group and it attracted 40 or so delegates. Good speech by Siobhan Benita, the London mayoral candidate - enthusiastic and didn't pretend to know everything.
The exhibition was a bit bigger than last year but still tiny compared with the Tories and Labour - I'd guess that their polling surge came after most companies had decided where to book, so they should have a real increase next year. Delegates cheerful and busy, older than I remember last year, with a good number of plucky very elderly delegates still pitching in there, as well as a fair number in the 30-50 range, though not many younger ones. Overwhelmingly white and generally middle-class - generally nice atmosphere.
PS Pshaw to the YouGov poll with its fantasy leading question flatly misstating the Labour position.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
Lib Dems are just another bunch of Tories, hopefully both of them get their just desserts for trying to rig things. Be especially good if Swinson gets dumped, why they want a carpetbagger running the constituency from Bath is beyond me, the fake would get a nosebleed coming north to Scotland
Swinson could lose her Westminster seat and come back at Holyrood swiftly.
If I were LD I would have Swinson running for First Minister and leave Chuka to run for PM
What chance do you think there is of her coming to Scotland, zero.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
@kle4 suggests that the nature of advisory referenda is well known. He may be right, but I hope you and he will forgive me if I'm not convinced.
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.
Does Manchester have a mayor?
Andy Burnham
And was there a referendum on whether to have a mayor in Manchester?
Yes, in 2012 and 53% of voters rejected it but a mayor was introduced for Greater Manchester after a poll found more support for that
Sam Gyimah and Rosie Duffield both heavily rumoured, but no announcement yet.
Sam G now confirmed.
A big gain for the Yellows, but one with zero chance of holding his seat at a general election. You could put a donkey up in that seat and if it wore a blue rosette it would win. Heck, even Dominic Cummings would probably just scrape home.
The City of Manchester ( one borough ) had a referendum on whether to have a directly elected mayor run its council services. It was a binding referendum, they voted No and they didn't get a mayor. Andy Burnham is the Mayor of Greater Manchester ( ten boroughs ) and runs strategic services not mentropolitan borough ones. The ' they ignored the Manchester referendum result ' is a common misconception but it's basically untrue. Andy Burnham covers a vastly larger geographic area and has a completely different set of powers than the proposition on the referendum ballot paper.
This is well trodden ground. Yes, it was advisory. Yes, political promises were made that the government would enact the decision. They have. It is parliament, sovereign over government, which has not.
The government enacted but parliament has not is like a salesperson saying they made the sale but the customer didn't buy. It's up to the executive to find the consensus position that the factions can sign up to. This government failed to get the consensus. They haven't tried particularly hard either.
This is well trodden ground. Yes, it was advisory. Yes, political promises were made that the government would enact the decision. They have. It is parliament, sovereign over government, which has not.
No, no, no, no, no. ( And this matters in this context.) Parliamentary sovereignty does *not* mean that the HoC beats the government . It means that the acts of the Crown in parliament bear everything else, in other words that properly enacted statutes trump everything else
11% of Liberal Democrat MPs are black. And people used to say barely a month ago they had no MPs from the ethnic minorities. That's a rapid improvement. How did they do it ?
11% of Liberal Democrat MPs are black. And people used to say barely a month ago they had no MPs from the ethnic minorities. That's a rapid improvement. How did they do it ?
They were wrong a month ago. Moran is half Palestinian Arab.
11% of Liberal Democrat MPs are black. And people used to say barely a month ago they had no MPs from the ethnic minorities. That's a rapid improvement. How did they do it ?
Some ways of stating ratios are more useful than others . Do you think it useful to say that Jesus was betrayed by 8.3% of his disciples?
Comments
However you are avoiding my questions above in a very politician like way.
Why do you think that is?
But it's no more than a simple fact that the referendum wasn't binding.
One that you assented to by taking part in the referendum. Ignorance of the law is no defence ;-)
I did suggest that I thought that there was a degree of democratic obligation surrounding it, but Mr Meeks pointed out that it was advisory, and thus my argument is at least partially undermined.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-eu-amended-20161122.pdf
A party wins the 2039 election promising to hold an (advisory) referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty and asks the question whether to keep it, or repeal it.
Repeal wins 52% to 48%.
The Government shouts, "Only kidding, it was only advisory. We only said it to win more votes." and fails to uphold the referendum. Later, someone is wrongly sent to the gallows.
That's fine then. It was, after all, only advice.
The exhibition was a bit bigger than last year but still tiny compared with the Tories and Labour - I'd guess that their polling surge came after most companies had decided where to book, so they should have a real increase next year. Delegates cheerful and busy, older than I remember last year, with a good number of plucky very elderly delegates still pitching in there, as well as a fair number in the 30-50 range, though not many younger ones. Overwhelmingly white and generally middle-class - generally nice atmosphere.
PS Pshaw to the YouGov poll with its fantasy leading question flatly misstating the Labour position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_English_mayoral_referendums
The path of madness is paved with legal nitpicking.
Right, I'm off to play The Secret of Monkey Island for a bit. More sensible.
NEW THREAD
No surprise, though he should have gone earlier, now we can get a pro Brexit Tory candidate to replace him
https://twitter.com/JWoodcockMP/status/1172930121214414848?s=20
Are you offering odds?