politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How referendums can add to the democratic process
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How referendums can add to the democratic process
Principles for calling referendums
Comments
-
I think the only referendum we need, is one banning further referendums.0
-
An interesting article @Fisherman, thank you.0
-
-
I see that just days after Dominic Raab discovered Britain is an island off the coast of France, Nadine Dorries has found out leaving the EU means no more UK MEPs or commissioners. Coming next, David Davis learns to use a knife and fork.0
-
The irony, despite the problems, something as important and as binary as our membership of the EU is best settled with a referendum.0
-
An excellent piece, thank you Fisherman. The key to a good referendum is that the executive of the day is signed up to implementing either result.0
-
Yes, the biggest mistake was not getting the people to vote for each treaty along the way (though, from the Europhile pov, I guess they didn't want to risk the people giving the wrong answer).notme said:The irony, despite the problems, something as important and as binary as our membership of the EU is best settled with a referendum.
0 -
Which is the answer... the EU went too far. It’s unlikely any post 1990 EU treaty would have passed a uk wide referendum, hence we never had one.tlg86 said:
Yes, the biggest mistake was not getting the people to vote for each treaty along the way (though, from the Europhile pov, I guess they didn't want to risk the people giving the wrong answer).notme said:The irony, despite the problems, something as important and as binary as our membership of the EU is best settled with a referendum.
0 -
Next some backbencher wingnut will start to complain that we have no say in the rules of the Single Market.SouthamObserver said:I see that just days after Dominic Raab discovered Britain is an island off the coast of France, Nadine Dorries has found out leaving the EU means no more UK MEPs or commissioners. Coming next, David Davis learns to use a knife and fork.
0 -
Although that would require some kind of honest and realistic exposition of the process of implementation.tlg86 said:An excellent piece, thank you Fisherman. The key to a good referendum is that the executive of the day is signed up to implementing either result.
Fact is, we are not really experienced enough at this. Therefore, starting small might have been better.
A referendum on equal marriage or marijuana for example. Whereby a government produces a specific bill, and then puts it to public vote, committed to either proceeding or abandoning.0 -
It wasn't the EU's fault'' it was successive British Governments which did what they expected to be able to do in a representative democracy.notme said:
Which is the answer... the EU went too far. It’s unlikely any post 1990 EU treaty would have passed a uk wide referendum, hence we never had one.tlg86 said:
Yes, the biggest mistake was not getting the people to vote for each treaty along the way (though, from the Europhile pov, I guess they didn't want to risk the people giving the wrong answer).notme said:The irony, despite the problems, something as important and as binary as our membership of the EU is best settled with a referendum.
0 -
You are right... much of our dissatisfaction has come about by the actions of our own governments.OldKingCole said:
It wasn't the EU's fault'' it was successive British Governments which did what they expected to be able to do in a representative democracy.notme said:
Which is the answer... the EU went too far. It’s unlikely any post 1990 EU treaty would have passed a uk wide referendum, hence we never had one.tlg86 said:
Yes, the biggest mistake was not getting the people to vote for each treaty along the way (though, from the Europhile pov, I guess they didn't want to risk the people giving the wrong answer).notme said:The irony, despite the problems, something as important and as binary as our membership of the EU is best settled with a referendum.
0 -
The issue isn't whether referendums give the "wrong answer" it's whether the public have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision. Given the mess the EU referendum has landed us in I think the only referendum I will ever see is one to get us out of the last one.glw said:
I don't expect to ever vote in another referendum, I can't imagine any government wanting to risk getting the "wrong answer" again.Foxy said:I think the only referendum we need, is one banning further referendums.
0 -
Certainly a vote on leaving the EU is - obviously - complicated by the rather important role played by another party (that, of course, was true of the Scottish Independence referendum). The problem with Cameron is that he wasn't prepared to countenance what he'd do in the event of leave winning that when they did, he couldn't realistically stay on. That said, that shouldn't have been too much of a problem given that A50 didn't need to be triggered immediately and even then the politicians should have worked out what they were aiming for.dixiedean said:
Although that would require some kind of honest and realistic exposition of the process of implementation.tlg86 said:An excellent piece, thank you Fisherman. The key to a good referendum is that the executive of the day is signed up to implementing either result.
Fact is, we are not really experienced enough at this. Therefore, starting small might have been better.
A referendum on equal marriage or marijuana for example. Whereby a government produces a specific bill, and then puts it to public vote, committed to either proceeding or abandoning.0 -
Good piece, Fisherman, thanks. I was impressed by the inclusiveness of referendums in Switzerland - it enablsd groups with no chance of forming a government to win a particular argument - the far-right got a ban on minarets, the far left got a ban on new inner-city car parks, the pacifists nearly managed to abolish the armed forces (and the Government respected the large minority vote by cutting defence spending in response). Obviously one might not agree with all these things, but it's great that an idea can be considered regardless of who puts it forward. The government can make a counter-proposal if it thinks the idea has some merit but goes too far.
The Swiss system allows referendums to be brought about by a small % of the electorate in the area affected (country, canton, town, etc.), and they are held every 3 months. People get a booklet from the government with a page for supporters and a page for opponents, plus the government's view. A side-effect is to downgrade the importance of party politics, since even if you win an election you will struggle to get anything through without popular support.0 -
I would consider reducing the importance of the parties a major plus factor.NickPalmer said:Good piece, Fisherman, thanks. I was impressed by the inclusiveness of referendums in Switzerland - it enablsd groups with no chance of forming a government to win a particular argument - the far-right got a ban on minarets, the far left got a ban on new inner-city car parks, the pacifists nearly managed to abolish the armed forces (and the Government respected the large minority vote by cutting defence spending in response). Obviously one might not agree with all these things, but it's great that an idea can be considered regardless of who puts it forward. The government can make a counter-proposal if it thinks the idea has some merit but goes too far.
The Swiss system allows referendums to be brought about by a small % of the electorate in the area affected (country, canton, town, etc.), and they are held every 3 months. People get a booklet from the government with a page for supporters and a page for opponents, plus the government's view. A side-effect is to downgrade the importance of party politics, since even if you win an election you will struggle to get anything through without popular support.
Also single issue parties or groups have a realistic way of getting the issue voted on. Sounds like we need more referendums.
Added: a way of taking posion and anger out of politics and a balance to the two party system.0 -
-
Why do people only worry about the "public have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision" when it comes to referendums? Surely that argument would apply to any vote. If you think we aren't smart enough to vote on one complicated issue, then surely that applies even more so to voting for a government which will have to take many important decisions.OllyT said:
The issue isn't whether referendums give the "wrong answer" it's whether the public have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision. Given the mess the EU referendum has landed us in I think the only referendum I will ever see is one to get us out of the last one.glw said:
I don't expect to ever vote in another referendum, I can't imagine any government wanting to risk getting the "wrong answer" again.Foxy said:I think the only referendum we need, is one banning further referendums.
The real problem with referendums is not with the voters, but with the questions and the options. In the case of the EU referendum we had any undefined Leave, which has meant all sorts of agendas have been pushed after the vote, and even Remain is ambiguous given the ever closer union push. Essentially the public were choosing by gut between two ill-defined futures.
0 -
Excellent piece, Fisherman.
Just on the whole which Conservative MPs will submit letters, there seems to be a growing consensus it won't happen. I wouldn't be too sure. I think there are genuinely a fair number who will take the feeling in the constituency and then decide. If I had to put a single category of Conservative MP who would be tempted to sign, I would look for those in marginal seats that have a high Working Class / Leave proportion and fear the deal will lose them the seats. That might account for the likes of Lee Rowley (NE Derbyshire), Ben Bradley (Mansfield), Simon Clarke (Middlesborough East) and Chris Green (Bolton West) signing. So I would look out for what others of the 2017 intake such as Jack Brereton (Stoke on Trent South), Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) and Trudy Harrison (Copeland).
If the reports also start to circulate that the EU are looking to maintain fishing rights, then I would expect the North East Scottish Tory MPs to sign.0 -
And the ERG think they can reverse that trend.Scott_P said:
0 -
Next local election date is also an issue, as it is assymetric. Here in Northumberland we have a council election once every 4 years.
We would therefore have smaller turnouts, and thus less influence in any plebiscites, when we aren't voting for anything else.0 -
Tory party disunity on the scale we've seen recently had to produce this eventually. Looks like the next GE is lost. On these sort of swings JRM's seat could be in danger so it's not all bad but what a ridiculous shambles in the grand cause of impoverishing and probably splitting a country.Scott_P said:0 -
The other bet re a VONC that the likes of Mogg and Baker might be making, and which is why they have made their move now, is that they expect the polling reaction to the deal to be similar to what happened after Chequers, namely the Conservative poll numbers start to come off sharply and there are signs some Conservatives switch to UKIP. I think they feel the mistake they made last time was giving May time to recover in the polls. Instead, they can point out to waverers / those in marginal seats that May will lose them their jobs. If I was looking at that Observer poll and I was one of those Tory MPs, I would be worried.
0 -
0
-
Polls like this will empower the ERG.Scott_P said:
If the deal is rejected, May has said it will be for Parliament go decide. I think that means she won’t stand in the way of a second referendum, despite all the protestations to the contrary.0 -
Interesting to hear the Swiss perspective. I wonder if the downside (from a liberal's point of view) is that it leads to a naturally more illiberal state - it is much easier to rally people to 'ban' something than it is to just allow more stuff (and your examples highlighted 2 examples).NickPalmer said:Good piece, Fisherman, thanks. I was impressed by the inclusiveness of referendums in Switzerland - it enablsd groups with no chance of forming a government to win a particular argument - the far-right got a ban on minarets, the far left got a ban on new inner-city car parks, the pacifists nearly managed to abolish the armed forces (and the Government respected the large minority vote by cutting defence spending in response). Obviously one might not agree with all these things, but it's great that an idea can be considered regardless of who puts it forward. The government can make a counter-proposal if it thinks the idea has some merit but goes too far.
The Swiss system allows referendums to be brought about by a small % of the electorate in the area affected (country, canton, town, etc.), and they are held every 3 months. People get a booklet from the government with a page for supporters and a page for opponents, plus the government's view. A side-effect is to downgrade the importance of party politics, since even if you win an election you will struggle to get anything through without popular support.0 -
As I said, the ERG can go back to MPs and say it is now and never, May is going to lose you your seat. A fair few MPs may break and say "sod it".RoyalBlue said:
Polls like this will empower the ERG.Scott_P said:
If the deal is rejected, May has said it will be for Parliament go decide. I think that means she won’t stand in the way of a second referendum, despite all the protestations to the contrary.0 -
But as Rory The Tory pointed out on Newsnight last night - Be careful what you wish for from a second referendum because "No Deal" stands a very good chance of winning.RoyalBlue said:
Polls like this will empower the ERG.Scott_P said:
If the deal is rejected, May has said it will be for Parliament go decide. I think that means she won’t stand in the way of a second referendum, despite all the protestations to the contrary.0 -
They’d never consider that it’s their actions driving it, would they. Loathsome halfwits. The sort of people who murder their parents and then ask for mercy by virtue of being an orphan.TheKitchenCabinet said:
As I said, the ERG can go back to MPs and say it is now and never, May is going to lose you your seat. A fair few MPs may break and say "sod it".RoyalBlue said:
Polls like this will empower the ERG.Scott_P said:
If the deal is rejected, May has said it will be for Parliament go decide. I think that means she won’t stand in the way of a second referendum, despite all the protestations to the contrary.0 -
A second referendum is such a bad idea .Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem with Brexit is that it has because the catch all for many grievances in the country - metropolitan areas vs small towns, social liberalism vs conservatism, rich v poor etc - that all sight has been lost of the original point. If the 2016 results gets overturned on this so-called People's Vote, it will ignite all those grievances.0 -
No Deal won’t be on the ballot. The MPs won’t allow it,GIN1138 said:
But as Rory The Tory pointed out on Newsnight last night - Be careful what you wish for from a second referendum because "No Deal" stands a very good chance of winning.RoyalBlue said:
Polls like this will empower the ERG.Scott_P said:
If the deal is rejected, May has said it will be for Parliament go decide. I think that means she won’t stand in the way of a second referendum, despite all the protestations to the contrary.0 -
But everything is a bad ideaTheKitchenCabinet said:
A second referendum is such a bad idea .Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem with Brexit is that it has because the catch all for many grievances in the country - metropolitan areas vs small towns, social liberalism vs conservatism, rich v poor etc - that all sight has been lost of the original point. If the 2016 results gets overturned on this so-called People's Vote, it will ignite all those grievances.
The drift to labour in the polls is likely to be evidence that remainers expect to get a referendum from them
I would expect the move to labour will be greater than to UKIP0 -
Nope but it makes sense from their standpoint.matt said:
They’d never consider that it’s their actions driving it, would they. Loathsome halfwits. The sort of people who murder their parents and then ask for mercy by virtue of being an orphan.TheKitchenCabinet said:
As I said, the ERG can go back to MPs and say it is now and never, May is going to lose you your seat. A fair few MPs may break and say "sod it".RoyalBlue said:
Polls like this will empower the ERG.Scott_P said:
If the deal is rejected, May has said it will be for Parliament go decide. I think that means she won’t stand in the way of a second referendum, despite all the protestations to the contrary.
The ERG has two things going for them in a contest - a block of MPs and, crucially, the need for a party to choose a leader quickly. If May steps down, a new leader has to be elected quickly so the key is which block can mobilise the quickest and create enough momentum to drive their candidate forwards. One a candidate has that momentum, they become hard to beat. The ultra-remainers are far fewer in number and most MPs don't care.0 -
I can now see how the following events happen
1) No Brexit
2) No Deal
3) Rejoining PDQ after 2
and finally
4) Another referendum (after thinking it wouldn't happen before we left)
The ERG are absolutely brilliant.0 -
Amen.Foxy said:I think the only referendum we need, is one banning further referendums.
0 -
So be it but it will become inevitableGIN1138 said:
But as Rory The Tory pointed out on Newsnight last night - Be careful what you wish for from a second referendum because "No Deal" stands a very good chance of winning.RoyalBlue said:
Polls like this will empower the ERG.Scott_P said:
If the deal is rejected, May has said it will be for Parliament go decide. I think that means she won’t stand in the way of a second referendum, despite all the protestations to the contrary.0 -
I think I will just treat myself to a glass of wine and walking the dogs than think about this any moreBig_G_NorthWales said:
But everything is a bad ideaTheKitchenCabinet said:
A second referendum is such a bad idea .Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem with Brexit is that it has because the catch all for many grievances in the country - metropolitan areas vs small towns, social liberalism vs conservatism, rich v poor etc - that all sight has been lost of the original point. If the 2016 results gets overturned on this so-called People's Vote, it will ignite all those grievances.
The drift to labour in the polls is likely to be evidence that remainers expect to get a referendum from them
I would expect the move to labour will be greater than to UKIP
0 -
I suppose the alternative is that the deal is rejected, and a Labour VONC against the government succeeds thanks to the abstention of the DUP. There would be 14 days for May, Arlene and Barnier to agree changes to the deal and confidence to be restored, or we vote.
I think the Tories would be massacred at that election.0 -
As for the header, unless I’ve missed it, it avoids the key pointt which is that referendums only work on simple matters and matters where you can control the process. So the Swiss car parks, Irish abortion changes and Californian taxes are a matter of internal policy. EU membership involves complicated multifaceted trade off and relies on bringing third parties with you. It’s wholly unsuitable for a simplistic binary question. Some things are too complicated for that. There’s a very good reason for the existence of representative democracy.0
-
Calm down everybody, we saw this kind of polling movement after Chequers, and once everybody took a breath the Tories retook their lead in the polls.0
-
I think many would agree that is a very good ideaTheKitchenCabinet said:
I think I will just treat myself to a glass of wine and walking the dogs than think about this any moreBig_G_NorthWales said:
But everything is a bad ideaTheKitchenCabinet said:
A second referendum is such a bad idea .Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem with Brexit is that it has because the catch all for many grievances in the country - metropolitan areas vs small towns, social liberalism vs conservatism, rich v poor etc - that all sight has been lost of the original point. If the 2016 results gets overturned on this so-called People's Vote, it will ignite all those grievances.
The drift to labour in the polls is likely to be evidence that remainers expect to get a referendum from them
I would expect the move to labour will be greater than to UKIP0 -
There is not time for us to ‘take a breath’.TheScreamingEagles said:Calm down everybody, we saw this kind of polling movement after Chequers, and once everybody took a breath the Tories retook their lead in the polls.
You forgot a general election in your list. If the DUP are happy to have one, we will.0 -
The EU said overnight they would only halt the process for a referendum or GERoyalBlue said:I suppose the alternative is that the deal is rejected, and a Labour VONC against the government succeeds thanks to the abstention of the DUP. There would be 14 days for May, Arlene and Barnier to agree changes to the deal and confidence to be restored, or we vote.
I think the Tories would be massacred at that election.
When that becomes widely known I do not know how a referendum will be stopped
The party is not going to commit electoral suicide0 -
I've been predicting a 2019 general election for a while, said it was inevitable if No Deal happened.RoyalBlue said:
There is not time for us to ‘take a breath’.TheScreamingEagles said:Calm down everybody, we saw this kind of polling movement after Chequers, and once everybody took a breath the Tories retook their lead in the polls.
You forgot a general election in your list. If the DUP are happy to have one, we will.0 -
Whether we have an election or not is not in our party’s gift. It’s up to the DUP.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The EU said overnight they would only halt the process for a referendum or GERoyalBlue said:I suppose the alternative is that the deal is rejected, and a Labour VONC against the government succeeds thanks to the abstention of the DUP. There would be 14 days for May, Arlene and Barnier to agree changes to the deal and confidence to be restored, or we vote.
I think the Tories would be massacred at that election.
When that becomes widely known I do not know how a referendum will be stopped
The party is not going to commit electoral suicide0 -
A good example of that was the Greek referendum on the Euro deal. Ultimately, the Eurozone was not going to change their offer, irrespective of what the Greeks voted. (And nor were they under any obligation to do so.)matt said:As for the header, unless I’ve missed it, it avoids the key pointt which is that referendums only work on simple matters and matters where you can control the process. So the Swiss car parks, Irish abortion changes and Californian taxes are a matter of internal policy. EU membership involves complicated multifaceted trade off and relies on bringing third parties with you. It’s wholly unsuitable for a simplistic binary question. Some things are too complicated for that. There’s a very good reason for the existence of representative democracy.
0 -
On topic, very interesting piece Fisherman.0
-
Assuming nothing major happens this evening, the morning thread features a detailed discussion about the alternative vote system.0
-
Wasn't that because the Tories went back to pretending that they could have a nice hard-yet-painless-Brexit and avoided coming to a firm agreement though? Not an option that's open this time, unless A50 is extended.TheScreamingEagles said:Calm down everybody, we saw this kind of polling movement after Chequers, and once everybody took a breath the Tories retook their lead in the polls.
0 -
I'd not be too unhappy if I were the Tories reading this. They aren't down too much, and the slippage to UKIP is likely to be reversed in an actual election. A Lib Dem revival would be much more threatening, but doesn't seem to be happening. But they are leaving themselves very exposed to a strong domestic offering from Labour. I think I am going to keep an eye on the odds for a simple Labour majority at the next election. It's 2 to 1 at the moment, which isn't quite tempting enough.Scott_P said:0 -
Another Sunday without AV then.....TheScreamingEagles said:Assuming nothing major happens this evening, the morning thread features a detailed discussion about the alternative vote system.
0 -
It would only lead to an election if the Tories signalled that they would vote NC against a Labour/LabLibSNP minority government. Given the likelihood of getting massacred they'd probably rather allow Corbyn to form a government instead. That would then lead to the two obvious questions: would Corbyn put forward a deal vs remain referendum, and would enough Tories back it for it to get through the house?RoyalBlue said:I suppose the alternative is that the deal is rejected, and a Labour VONC against the government succeeds thanks to the abstention of the DUP. There would be 14 days for May, Arlene and Barnier to agree changes to the deal and confidence to be restored, or we vote.
I think the Tories would be massacred at that election.
It's not really a position Labour would want to be in.0 -
Very interesting, but if I may I would put in my tuppence worth. Referendums should have a minimum percentage (say 40%) of the electorate to vote, and 60% of the actual voters to vote for change. Otherwise, we keep coming back to another referendum until one side or the other gets the result they want. Anybody who doesn't vote can't complain if the vote didn't go the way they wanted - the rules were there. I would also put in that in elections on a FPTP, if the total vote in the constituency is less than 50% of the electorate, then there should be a run off between the top 2 - should start to concentrate minds.0
-
Of course if Con fall behind in the polls then they'll be even less likely to call a GE.
If DUP abstain then Govt has majority of 3 if everyone turns up.
2019 GE has edged back out to 2.5 (6-4) on Betfair.0 -
That is the nub of it. We have no good options, nor even bad options. We have only terrible options.Big_G_NorthWales said:
But everything is a bad ideaTheKitchenCabinet said:
A second referendum is such a bad idea .Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem with Brexit is that it has because the catch all for many grievances in the country - metropolitan areas vs small towns, social liberalism vs conservatism, rich v poor etc - that all sight has been lost of the original point. If the 2016 results gets overturned on this so-called People's Vote, it will ignite all those grievances.
A No deal - the health minister cannot guarantee this would not lead to deaths. Enough said.
B May's deal - the chances of this getting through Parliament seem to be about zero. But even if it could get through it would leave the UK in a much worse position than EU membership, we would neither have our cake nor be able to eat it, to coin a phrase.
C second referendum - divisive, not guaranteed to produce a clear result, unclear what the question should be, is it realistic to expect voters to be able to form an informed view of a massively complex international treaty?
D renegotiation, but no one involved seriously supposes that such a process would produce more than
cosmetic changes to May's deal.
The Tories have locked the UK in a burning building and thrown away the key.0 -
Indeed. As I said, the real life reaction to the deal I've been seeing is nothing like what the polls are saying. Let's let the dust settle a bit before getting excited about poll movements.TheScreamingEagles said:Calm down everybody, we saw this kind of polling movement after Chequers, and once everybody took a breath the Tories retook their lead in the polls.
0 -
Really? To be put in government without an election? I think they'd snatch the Tories hands off.Polruan said:
It would only lead to an election if the Tories signalled that they would vote NC against a Labour/LabLibSNP minority government. Given the likelihood of getting massacred they'd probably rather allow Corbyn to form a government instead. That would then lead to the two obvious questions: would Corbyn put forward a deal vs remain referendum, and would enough Tories back it for it to get through the house?RoyalBlue said:I suppose the alternative is that the deal is rejected, and a Labour VONC against the government succeeds thanks to the abstention of the DUP. There would be 14 days for May, Arlene and Barnier to agree changes to the deal and confidence to be restored, or we vote.
I think the Tories would be massacred at that election.
It's not really a position Labour would want to be in.
And were your scenario to unfold, could the Tories operate on any unified basis? If Corbyn put it forward, the Tories would be divided still.0 -
Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
0 -
Thanks to Fisherman for the header article. I don't think I've noticed him/her on the site before.0
-
Deleted =old poll0
-
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.0 -
Corbyn could douse the flames in an instant - just 3-line Whip an abstention on May's deal.....anothernick said:
That is the nub of it. We have no good options, nor even bad options. We have only terrible options.Big_G_NorthWales said:
But everything is a bad ideaTheKitchenCabinet said:
A second referendum is such a bad idea .Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem with Brexit is that it has because the catch all for many grievances in the country - metropolitan areas vs small towns, social liberalism vs conservatism, rich v poor etc - that all sight has been lost of the original point. If the 2016 results gets overturned on this so-called People's Vote, it will ignite all those grievances.
A No deal - the health minister cannot guarantee this would not lead to deaths. Enough said.
B May's deal - the chances of this getting through Parliament seem to be about zero. But even if it could get through it would leave the UK in a much worse position than EU membership, we would neither have our cake nor be able to eat it, to coin a phrase.
C second referendum - divisive, not guaranteed to produce a clear result, unclear what the question should be, is it realistic to expect voters to be able to form an informed view of a massively complex international treaty?
D renegotiation, but no one involved seriously supposes that such a process would produce more than
cosmetic changes to May's deal.
The Tories have locked the UK in a burning building and thrown away the key.0 -
My recommendation is no more referendums everOchEye said:Very interesting, but if I may I would put in my tuppence worth. Referendums should have a minimum percentage (say 40%) of the electorate to vote, and 60% of the actual voters to vote for change. Otherwise, we keep coming back to another referendum until one side or the other gets the result they want. Anybody who doesn't vote can't complain if the vote didn't go the way they wanted - the rules were there. I would also put in that in elections on a FPTP, if the total vote in the constituency is less than 50% of the electorate, then there should be a run off between the top 2 - should start to concentrate minds.
0 -
I know it was intended as a spoiler and was successful as such, but the 40% of the electorate threshold imposed on the 1979 devolution votes actually is a sensible provision: if you can’t get at least 40% of the electorate behind a major change, you probably shouldn’t do it, and yes, I know that would mean there’d be no Welsh devolution today.OchEye said:Very interesting, but if I may I would put in my tuppence worth. Referendums should have a minimum percentage (say 40%) of the electorate to vote, and 60% of the actual voters to vote for change. Otherwise, we keep coming back to another referendum until one side or the other gets the result they want. Anybody who doesn't vote can't complain if the vote didn't go the way they wanted - the rules were there.
Some states are adopting that here in the US, and of course the “instant” runoff variety is merely our old friend AV.OchEye said:I would also put in that in elections on a FPTP, if the total vote in the constituency is less than 50% of the electorate, then there should be a run off between the top 2 - should start to concentrate minds.
0 -
Britain Elects
@britainelects
31m31 minutes ago
More
Westminster voting intentiomn:
LAB: 39% (+2)
CON: 36% (-5)
UKIP: 8% (+2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
GRN: 3% (-)
via @OpiniumReseach, 14 Nov
Chgs. w/ 11 Oct0 -
Changes in the Opinium poll compared to the last general election:
Lab -2%
Con -7%
UKIP +6%
LD -1%
SNP +2%
Greens +1%0 -
It's a hard one to call, I think. The Tories would unite to block anything at all Corbyn wanted to do on the domestic front. He could have some fun preparing for the next election campaign by proposing lots of populist but unworkable measures secure in the knowledge they would never need to be implemented - and then making the Tories vote them down. But he's interested in changing things and wouldn't really be able to do that.dixiedean said:
Really? To be put in government without an election? I think they'd snatch the Tories hands off.Polruan said:
It would only lead to an election if the Tories signalled that they would vote NC against a Labour/LabLibSNP minority government. Given the likelihood of getting massacred they'd probably rather allow Corbyn to form a government instead. That would then lead to the two obvious questions: would Corbyn put forward a deal vs remain referendum, and would enough Tories back it for it to get through the house?RoyalBlue said:I suppose the alternative is that the deal is rejected, and a Labour VONC against the government succeeds thanks to the abstention of the DUP. There would be 14 days for May, Arlene and Barnier to agree changes to the deal and confidence to be restored, or we vote.
I think the Tories would be massacred at that election.
It's not really a position Labour would want to be in.
And were your scenario to unfold, could the Tories operate on any unified basis? If Corbyn put it forward, the Tories would be divided still.
So that just leaves Brexit and the essential thing for Labour is not to be portrayed as stopping Brexit against the 'will of the people' unless it's done in clear co-operation with the Conservative party. If Labour plus assorted Conservative rebels get a new referendum through the House, and the Conservative leadership's position remains to oppose a referendum and pursue Brexit, then Labour would get annihilated at the next GE by a populist Tory leader proposing a new round of fantasy unicorns.0 -
The Tories will suffer a Canada level existential event if it is No Deal and that scenario does turn out to involve empty shelves, lorry parks, meds in short supply and even deaths.rcs1000 said:
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.
0 -
Must be an outlier.bigjohnowls said:Britain Elects
@britainelects
31m31 minutes ago
More
Westminster voting intentiomn:
LAB: 39% (+2)
CON: 36% (-5)
UKIP: 8% (+2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
GRN: 3% (-)
via @OpiniumReseach, 14 Nov
Chgs. w/ 11 Oct0 -
To be binding, they have to offer a specific proposition, including sufficient detail to avoid ending up in the courts afterwards.0
-
It cannot be allowed to happen. The mps have to stop it or they will all be unelectablerottenborough said:
The Tories will suffer a Canada level existential event if it is No Deal and that scenario does turn out to involve empty shelves, lorry parks, meds in short supply and even deaths.rcs1000 said:
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.0 -
Given the truly embarrassing shambles the Supreme Soviet, oops, the Sennedd is rapidly becoming I like your idea more than I already did.rpjs said:
I know it was intended as a spoiler and was successful as such, but the 40% of the electorate threshold imposed on the 1979 devolution votes actually is a sensible provision: if you can’t get at least 40% of the electorate behind a major change, you probably shouldn’t do it, and yes, I know that would mean there’d be no Welsh devolution today.0 -
Corbyn is Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which part of Opposition do you not understand? Which part of not kissing the government's backside did Cameron or any Conservative Opposition leader did you support?MarqueeMark said:
Corbyn could douse the flames in an instant - just 3-line Whip an abstention on May's deal.....anothernick said:
That is the nub of it. We have no good options, nor even bad options. We have only terrible options.Big_G_NorthWales said:
But everything is a bad ideaTheKitchenCabinet said:
A second referendum is such a bad idea .Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem with Brexit is that it has because the catch all for many grievances in the country - metropolitan areas vs small towns, social liberalism vs conservatism, rich v poor etc - that all sight has been lost of the original point. If the 2016 results gets overturned on this so-called People's Vote, it will ignite all those grievances.
A No deal - the health minister cannot guarantee this would not lead to deaths. Enough said.
B May's deal - the chances of this getting through Parliament seem to be about zero. But even if it could get through it would leave the UK in a much worse position than EU membership, we would neither have our cake nor be able to eat it, to coin a phrase.
C second referendum - divisive, not guaranteed to produce a clear result, unclear what the question should be, is it realistic to expect voters to be able to form an informed view of a massively complex international treaty?
D renegotiation, but no one involved seriously supposes that such a process would produce more than
cosmetic changes to May's deal.
The Tories have locked the UK in a burning building and thrown away the key.0 -
Fair enough. Frankly, we are some distance from there. But it is fun to speculate.Polruan said:
It's a hard one to call, I think. The Tories would unite to block anything at all Corbyn wanted to do on the domestic front. He could have some fun preparing for the next election campaign by proposing lots of populist but unworkable measures secure in the knowledge they would never need to be implemented - and then making the Tories vote them down. But he's interested in changing things and wouldn't really be able to do that.dixiedean said:
Really? To be put in government without an election? I think they'd snatch the Tories hands off.Polruan said:
It would only lead to an election if the Tories signalled that they would vote NC against a Labour/LabLibSNP minority government. Given the likelihood of getting massacred they'd probably rather allow Corbyn to form a government instead. That would then lead to the two obvious questions: would Corbyn put forward a deal vs remain referendum, and would enough Tories back it for it to get through the house?RoyalBlue said:I suppose the alternative is that the deal is rejected, and a Labour VONC against the government succeeds thanks to the abstention of the DUP. There would be 14 days for May, Arlene and Barnier to agree changes to the deal and confidence to be restored, or we vote.
I think the Tories would be massacred at that election.
It's not really a position Labour would want to be in.
And were your scenario to unfold, could the Tories operate on any unified basis? If Corbyn put it forward, the Tories would be divided still.
So that just leaves Brexit and the essential thing for Labour is not to be portrayed as stopping Brexit against the 'will of the people' unless it's done in clear co-operation with the Conservative party. If Labour plus assorted Conservative rebels get a new referendum through the House, and the Conservative leadership's position remains to oppose a referendum and pursue Brexit, then Labour would get annihilated at the next GE by a populist Tory leader proposing a new round of fantasy unicorns.0 -
Well we certainly wouldn't have a Welsh Assembly with those requirements.OchEye said:Very interesting, but if I may I would put in my tuppence worth. Referendums should have a minimum percentage (say 40%) of the electorate to vote, and 60% of the actual voters to vote for change. Otherwise, we keep coming back to another referendum until one side or the other gets the result they want. Anybody who doesn't vote can't complain if the vote didn't go the way they wanted - the rules were there. I would also put in that in elections on a FPTP, if the total vote in the constituency is less than 50% of the electorate, then there should be a run off between the top 2 - should start to concentrate minds.
0 -
Baxtered that puts the Tories on 274 seats and Labour on 294, 32 short of a majority. However in practice with UKIP being in the state it is I can't see them getting half of 8% - I can't even see them standing in most constituencies. So the question is where will the UKIP vote go. Corbyn's policy of masterly inactivity is a smart one. The Tories own Brexit, all Corbyn has to do is not oppose it.bigjohnowls said:Britain Elects
@britainelects
31m31 minutes ago
More
Westminster voting intentiomn:
LAB: 39% (+2)
CON: 36% (-5)
UKIP: 8% (+2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
GRN: 3% (-)
via @OpiniumReseach, 14 Nov
Chgs. w/ 11 Oct0 -
Chequers2+MarqueeMark said:
0 -
May needs to put her Deal to the vote.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It cannot be allowed to happen. The mps have to stop it or they will all be unelectablerottenborough said:
The Tories will suffer a Canada level existential event if it is No Deal and that scenario does turn out to involve empty shelves, lorry parks, meds in short supply and even deaths.rcs1000 said:
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.
If it falls, she should immediately request that the EU allow an extension of A50.
The Brexit the ultra unicorn lovers dream of should be put out of their reach.0 -
You say that like it's a bad thing.AndyJS said:
Well we certainly wouldn't have a Welsh Assembly with those requirements.OchEye said:Very interesting, but if I may I would put in my tuppence worth. Referendums should have a minimum percentage (say 40%) of the electorate to vote, and 60% of the actual voters to vote for change. Otherwise, we keep coming back to another referendum until one side or the other gets the result they want. Anybody who doesn't vote can't complain if the vote didn't go the way they wanted - the rules were there. I would also put in that in elections on a FPTP, if the total vote in the constituency is less than 50% of the electorate, then there should be a run off between the top 2 - should start to concentrate minds.
0 -
not enough said. you could say this about many policies (e.g. anything about arming or disarming the police, anything affecting healthcare, etc.) and moreover characterise this as an opportunity cost of any government spending.anothernick said:
That is the nub of it. We have no good options, nor even bad options. We have only terrible options.
A No deal - the health minister cannot guarantee this would not lead to deaths. Enough said.
the question we should ask is something closer to do the discounted benefits outweigh the costs (relative to the best of the other options). the honest answer is that beyond some obvious short term costs no one has a clue. there are far too many intangibles. at that point i default to ideology. it looks like you get there more quickly and less honestly.
meanwhile, two ingredients possibly missing from mars bars? special limited edition brexit recipe with suitably branded packaging and a boost for their domestic suppliers might fix that.
0 -
Depends entirely on how they react - a radical PM could see a second Thatcherite revolution.rottenborough said:
The Tories will suffer a Canada level existential event if it is No Deal and that scenario does turn out to involve empty shelves, lorry parks, meds in short supply and even deaths.rcs1000 said:
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.
Quit the EU cleanly. Massive tax cuts and investment incentives and focus on the future.0 -
With May and Hammond in charge - a smaller drop.rcs1000 said:
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.
With a Gove/ Raab double team and some radical policies to negate the effects - a boost.0 -
Unicorn alert.TGOHF said:
Depends entirely on how they react - a radical PM could see a second Thatcherite revolution.rottenborough said:
The Tories will suffer a Canada level existential event if it is No Deal and that scenario does turn out to involve empty shelves, lorry parks, meds in short supply and even deaths.rcs1000 said:
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.
Quit the EU cleanly. Massive tax cuts and investment incentives and focus on the future.0 -
She has to give some rationale for A50 extension, though - it can't just be "Please Ms Merkel, can I have a few more years to delay hard decisions so that I can still get to be PM?"rottenborough said:
May needs to put her Deal to the vote.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It cannot be allowed to happen. The mps have to stop it or they will all be unelectablerottenborough said:
The Tories will suffer a Canada level existential event if it is No Deal and that scenario does turn out to involve empty shelves, lorry parks, meds in short supply and even deaths.rcs1000 said:
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.
If it falls, she should immediately request that the EU allow an extension of A50.
The Brexit the ultra unicorn lovers dream of should be put out of their reach.
The obvious ones are a GE or referendum. The only other retreat I can see is to say "Based on Parliament's rejection of the deal, it's now the UK's intention to leave with no deal in place, but we accept that this will require huge preparation on both sides of the channel, and can't possibly be done by the end of March 19. We therefore request a five year delay to A50 while we develop standalone national infrastructure, border facilities [and so on]." Essentially asking for A50 to be extended to allow the UK to do what it should have done in the first place if no deal was ever going to be a credible negotiating position.
At that point she obviously gets no-confidenced , as she would always have done if she had admitted the reality that leaving with no-deal within 2 years was impossible without implementing hugely expensive and unpopular measures to deal with it.0 -
How are you going to avoid the international treaty obligations of approx 30 billion, huge collapse in the pound, JIT manufacturing paralysed, and fury across the nationTGOHF said:
Depends entirely on how they react - a radical PM could see a second Thatcherite revolution.rottenborough said:
The Tories will suffer a Canada level existential event if it is No Deal and that scenario does turn out to involve empty shelves, lorry parks, meds in short supply and even deaths.rcs1000 said:
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.
Quit the EU cleanly. Massive tax cuts and investment incentives and focus on the future.
And there is no radical pm out there that could get consensus, especially from ERG0 -
shiney, GIN et al:
The EU is unlikely to offer us a better deal.
The question therefore becomes stark: does the government back No Deal, which would allow it to capture some UKIP votes, but would probably mean losing soft Leave votes to absentions, Labour or the LibDems?
Or does the government back this deal, which keeps the LibDem vote share depressed, but risks losing votes to UKIP?
With support for No Deal Brexit of 32%, and with some of that being left wing No Deal (a la Sandy Rentool), and some of it being loonies who'd back UKIP (because Muslims) irrespective, it's not clear to me that the Conservatives would be pursuing a winning strategy by going the No Deal route.
It's also clear that those who lost jobs - and yes even if it turned out to be all sunshine and roses, there would be some losers - would probably never return to the Conservatives.0 -
If May cannot sell her deal to her deal to the minister directly responsible, let alone the rest of her own cabinet, why on earth should Labour buy it?MarqueeMark said:
Corbyn could douse the flames in an instant - just 3-line Whip an abstention on May's deal.....anothernick said:
That is the nub of it. We have no good options, nor even bad options. We have only terrible options.Big_G_NorthWales said:
But everything is a bad ideaTheKitchenCabinet said:
A second referendum is such a bad idea .Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem with Brexit is that it has because the catch all for many grievances in the country - metropolitan areas vs small towns, social liberalism vs conservatism, rich v poor etc - that all sight has been lost of the original point. If the 2016 results gets overturned on this so-called People's Vote, it will ignite all those grievances.
A No deal - the health minister cannot guarantee this would not lead to deaths. Enough said.
B May's deal - the chances of this getting through Parliament seem to be about zero. But even if it could get through it would leave the UK in a much worse position than EU membership, we would neither have our cake nor be able to eat it, to coin a phrase.
C second referendum - divisive, not guaranteed to produce a clear result, unclear what the question should be, is it realistic to expect voters to be able to form an informed view of a massively complex international treaty?
D renegotiation, but no one involved seriously supposes that such a process would produce more than
cosmetic changes to May's deal.
The Tories have locked the UK in a burning building and thrown away the key.0 -
Rubbish.TGOHF said:
With May and Hammond in charge - a smaller drop.rcs1000 said:
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.
With a Gove/ Raab double team and some radical policies to negate the effects - a boost.
People feel the effects directly. Blithely saying "we've got some radical policies to negate the effects." makes it sound as though you've stabbed someone through the heart, but here is a children's plaster to put on the wound.0 -
Use the £39Bn as a stimulus to avoid any dip. You have 3 years until the election.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How are you going to avoid the international treaty obligations of approx 30 billion, huge collapse in the pound, JIT manufacturing paralysed, and fury across the nationTGOHF said:
Depends entirely on how they react - a radical PM could see a second Thatcherite revolution.rottenborough said:
The Tories will suffer a Canada level existential event if it is No Deal and that scenario does turn out to involve empty shelves, lorry parks, meds in short supply and even deaths.rcs1000 said:
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.
Quit the EU cleanly. Massive tax cuts and investment incentives and focus on the future.
And there is no radical pm out there that could get consensus, especially from ERG
Importing high value car parts to screw into a chassis is overrated anyway.0 -
"Massive tax cuts"TGOHF said:
Depends entirely on how they react - a radical PM could see a second Thatcherite revolution.rottenborough said:
The Tories will suffer a Canada level existential event if it is No Deal and that scenario does turn out to involve empty shelves, lorry parks, meds in short supply and even deaths.rcs1000 said:
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the polls would be saying if it was announced that it had been impossible to reach agreement with the EU, and we were leaving without a deal, and please fasten your seabelts?TGOHF said:Unsurprising drop in the polls as the scales fall away from the eyes of the public and they see what a clusterfudge the May/Hammond axis of crap has made of the negotiations.
As a lifelong Con voter I wont be voting for them again whilst these two are at the helm.
Get the letters in please Con MPs.
Because the prior polling might have been based on Schrodinger's Brexit.
Quit the EU cleanly. Massive tax cuts and investment incentives and focus on the future.
Question: we're in our tenth year of economic expansion, with many signs that the economy is close to capacity. Yet we're not running anything approaching a budget surplus. Our overall debt-to-GDP is more than twice it was prior to the last recession. And the demographic challenges - increasing pension and healthcare costs - will only pressure government budgets going forward.
How are we going to afford these "massive tax cuts"?0 -
Scotland didn't get a Scottish Assembly in 1978 with the same rules, comment please!AndyJS said:
Well we certainly wouldn't have a Welsh Assembly with those requirements.OchEye said:Very interesting, but if I may I would put in my tuppence worth. Referendums should have a minimum percentage (say 40%) of the electorate to vote, and 60% of the actual voters to vote for change. Otherwise, we keep coming back to another referendum until one side or the other gets the result they want. Anybody who doesn't vote can't complain if the vote didn't go the way they wanted - the rules were there. I would also put in that in elections on a FPTP, if the total vote in the constituency is less than 50% of the electorate, then there should be a run off between the top 2 - should start to concentrate minds.
0 -
Excellent thread header by Fisherman. The best for a long time. But of course I only say that because I agree with everything he says. If I disagreed then it would be the worst thread header I had seen in ages on here.
On the question of the moment I am reluctantly in Casino Royal's camp. Thanks to May's ineptitude and iniquity this is a pretty awful deal but I would take it any day over Remain. I would be 50:50 over this Deal compared to No Deal, mostly because of the threat of Brexit being cancelled if this deal falls.
It does all however reinforce my view that all politicians are basically dishonest shits and the sooner we have more direct democracy the better.0
