markg wrote:
Same UKIP who got one MP?
Well, yes, but they also got lots of votes though.
Quote:
What % of the electorate voted for the Tories at the last GE? This referendum being one item in their manifesto is the basis for your claim that most people wanted to have this referendum? That's ridiculous.
Well, I don't think that's the only reason, no. Fair enough, you disagree, but I can't see why a referendum on something is per se a bad thing. And, as we've done to death, I don't think that the people who voted were all conned into it, so there must have been lots of people out there who wanted this to happen.
I appreciate that Cameron might have felt backed into it but he had people counselling him against it and went for it anyway. Went for broke, all in with the stakes being all our futures. Not for us but for the sake of him and his party. Absolute fucking cunt.
markg wrote:
I appreciate that Cameron might have felt backed into it but he had people counselling him against it and went for it anyway. Went for broke, all in with the stakes being all our futures. Not for us but for the sake of him and his party. Absolute fucking cunt.
I actually think he felt he could pull it off, having saved his leadership in 2007, snuck into power in 2010, seen off Scotland in 2014, and won a victory in 2015. As I said elsewhere, his political destruction is worthy of Shakespeare.
MrChris wrote:
I don't think that the people who voted were all conned into it, so there must have been lots of people out there who wanted this to happen.
I don't think all the people were conned into it either. I think a fucking shitload more than 2% of the Leave voters were. Most of the conversations I've had were with people who were, parroting easily refutable leave campaign and tabloid rubbish.
MrChris wrote:
Cras wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Was it wrong to have a referendum then? Given that the majority of the country both (a) wanted one and (b) wanted to leave the EU?
Yes. On the simple premise that I've mentioned before - it's always wrong to have a referendum. Unless you're naming a boat.
But why, though? What's wrong with democracy? Yes, some things don't work with referendums ( if you're giving a choice no one wanted, why end up with A or B - e.g. AV), but this was a very simple yes/no question on something that lots of people wanted to put to bed one way or the other, and of course the Tories had it in their manifesto and they got elected.
We have a democracy. A representative democracy. We have an entire caste of politicians, backed up by an army of civil servants and legal experts, whose exact job is to understand complex political, social, and economic issues in order to be able to vote on them from a position of educated understanding.
Who in the general public has the inclination, let alone the time, to get properly, deeply educated on an issue of the size and scope of EU membership before voting on it? Few, I'd imagine, and I'm counting myself in the 'not I' category.
I think we're ably demonstrating right now that the majority of things that people would have wanted when voting in this most recent referendum aren't things that are able to be achieved.
*Freedom from regulation - NOPE
*Reduced EU migration - NOPE
*Not paying millions in fees - NOPE
So that's a load of reasons immediately cancelled out. And spending time looking into the deals that current non-EU EEA members have would have made that clear in advance. But few people have the time or inclination to actually properly research such implications - which is why we hire politicians, supported by the civil service, to do so.
That was odd, I just had a really strange feeling, and had to come and catch up with this thread, but I don't know why.
It's wearing off a bit now, thDID MYP JUST CALL SOMEONE ELSE PATRONISING?
It's wearing off a bit now, thDID MYP JUST CALL SOMEONE ELSE PATRONISING?
Cras wrote:
We have a democracy. A representative democracy. We have an entire caste of politicians, backed up by an army of civil servants and legal experts, whose exact job is to understand complex political, social, and economic issues in order to be able to vote on them from a position of educated understanding.
Who in the general public has the inclination, let alone the time, to get properly, deeply educated on an issue of the size and scope of EU membership before voting on it? Few, I'd imagine, and I'm counting myself in the 'not I' category.
I think we're ably demonstrating right now that the majority of things that people would have wanted when voting in this most recent referendum aren't things that are able to be achieved.
*Freedom from regulation - NOPE
*Reduced EU migration - NOPE
*Not paying millions in fees - NOPE
So that's a load of reasons immediately cancelled out. And spending time looking into the deals that current non-EU EEA members have would have made that clear in advance. But few people have the time or inclination to actually properly research such implications - which is why we hire politicians, supported by the civil service, to do so.
Who in the general public has the inclination, let alone the time, to get properly, deeply educated on an issue of the size and scope of EU membership before voting on it? Few, I'd imagine, and I'm counting myself in the 'not I' category.
I think we're ably demonstrating right now that the majority of things that people would have wanted when voting in this most recent referendum aren't things that are able to be achieved.
*Freedom from regulation - NOPE
*Reduced EU migration - NOPE
*Not paying millions in fees - NOPE
So that's a load of reasons immediately cancelled out. And spending time looking into the deals that current non-EU EEA members have would have made that clear in advance. But few people have the time or inclination to actually properly research such implications - which is why we hire politicians, supported by the civil service, to do so.
You make some good points, but on that basis we should actually just do away with elections all together, because lord knows how people can be expected to understand why the Tories' Manifesto Policy A is better than Labour's Manifesto Policy B. I also remain instinctively wary of taking the "poor silly stupid populace can't be expected to understand things" route as an argument for taking choice away from them. And it's generally the poor and less well educated that you're really talking about here. Because if the referendum had just been for Beex members that would have been A-OK, right? Because we never believe propaganda.
But I think one thing we can agree on is "it's all a bit complicated".
Cras wrote:
We have an entire caste of politicians, backed up by an army of civil servants and legal experts, whose exact job is to understand complex political, social, and economic issues in order to be able to vote on them from a position of educated understanding.
Aren't they our elected representatives, who should be doing what the public asks for?
Grim... wrote:
Cras wrote:
We have an entire caste of politicians, backed up by an army of civil servants and legal experts, whose exact job is to understand complex political, social, and economic issues in order to be able to vote on them from a position of educated understanding.
Aren't they our elected representatives, who should be doing what the public asks for?
God no. The only reason for an MP to directly do what the public want is to gain re-election.
Cras wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Cras wrote:
We have an entire caste of politicians, backed up by an army of civil servants and legal experts, whose exact job is to understand complex political, social, and economic issues in order to be able to vote on them from a position of educated understanding.
Aren't they our elected representatives, who should be doing what the public asks for?
God no. The only reason for an MP to directly do what the public want is to gain re-election.
Has Craster become Edmund Burke?
Quote:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion
ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
MrChris wrote:
You make some good points, but on that basis we should actually just do away with elections all together, because lord knows how people can be expected to understand why the Tories' Manifesto Policy A is better than Labour's Manifesto Policy B. I also remain instinctively wary of taking the "poor silly stupid populace can't be expected to understand things" route as an argument for taking choice away from them. And it's generally the poor and less well educated that you're really talking about here. Because if the referendum had just been for Beex members that would have been A-OK, right?
But I think one thing we can agree on is "it's all a bit complicated".
But I think one thing we can agree on is "it's all a bit complicated".
I had this argument with Cavey a couple of weeks ago. I'm not talking about 'poor silly stupid' or 'poor and less well educated' at all. I'm talking about 70% of the public having to spend 10 hours a day working for a living, and the rest of the time dealing with homes and families and all the rest. Not many people have the spare time or the interest to dedicate to understanding cross-border legal issues, trade deals, tax policy and the like. It's nothing to do with being incapable, it's all about putting the decisions in the hands of people who by definition have the time and reason, because it's their job.
Kern wrote:
Quote:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion
ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
Love that!
MrChris wrote:
Cras wrote:
We have a democracy. A representative democracy. We have an entire caste of politicians, backed up by an army of civil servants and legal experts, whose exact job is to understand complex political, social, and economic issues in order to be able to vote on them from a position of educated understanding.
Who in the general public has the inclination, let alone the time, to get properly, deeply educated on an issue of the size and scope of EU membership before voting on it? Few, I'd imagine, and I'm counting myself in the 'not I' category.
I think we're ably demonstrating right now that the majority of things that people would have wanted when voting in this most recent referendum aren't things that are able to be achieved.
*Freedom from regulation - NOPE
*Reduced EU migration - NOPE
*Not paying millions in fees - NOPE
So that's a load of reasons immediately cancelled out. And spending time looking into the deals that current non-EU EEA members have would have made that clear in advance. But few people have the time or inclination to actually properly research such implications - which is why we hire politicians, supported by the civil service, to do so.
Who in the general public has the inclination, let alone the time, to get properly, deeply educated on an issue of the size and scope of EU membership before voting on it? Few, I'd imagine, and I'm counting myself in the 'not I' category.
I think we're ably demonstrating right now that the majority of things that people would have wanted when voting in this most recent referendum aren't things that are able to be achieved.
*Freedom from regulation - NOPE
*Reduced EU migration - NOPE
*Not paying millions in fees - NOPE
So that's a load of reasons immediately cancelled out. And spending time looking into the deals that current non-EU EEA members have would have made that clear in advance. But few people have the time or inclination to actually properly research such implications - which is why we hire politicians, supported by the civil service, to do so.
You make some good points, but on that basis we should actually just do away with elections all together, because lord knows how people can be expected to understand why the Tories' Manifesto Policy A is better than Labour's Manifesto Policy B. I also remain instinctively wary of taking the "poor silly stupid populace can't be expected to understand things" route as an argument for taking choice away from them.
I agreed with you until this fiasco actually unfolded and, whilst devastated by the result, it's genuinely not a case of sour grapes on my part. Time and again, I have personally heard first hand, and many more times in the media, the most fuck-witted, idiotic and misinformed reasons why people voted Leave (and in many cases, who now regret it).
I am a democrat through and through, but one should never fall into the trap of looking at people through the lens of one's own intellect, at least semblance of diligence, and liberal values; a huge chunk of (mainly older) people are thick bigots, sadly.
I'd love to live in a world where this was not the case, but really, this was simply too momentous to be risked by a referendum.
Craster's right.
Having that on my tombstone.
Cras wrote:
Having that on my tombstone.
Attachment:
download.png
MrChris wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Whoever it is who does those cartoon things isn't clever or funny, myp. And you continually misuse them, too.
They're hilarious and brilliant. And these are totally relevant to you, Mr Constant Devil's Advocate for no reason.
In that case I don't think you know what Devil's Advocate means, myp.
Oh, do tell me then. I haven't been patronised enough by you recently.
Can you show me one example of me patronising you, rather than the other way around? It's not me that's constantly been responding to your posts with little but snark myp. I genuinely don't know why you apparently have such a problem with me, but there we are.
Sorry, I'm having a bad day. Been working since 6am.
Cras wrote:
I had this argument with Cavey a couple of weeks ago. I'm not talking about 'poor silly stupid' or 'poor and less well educated' at all. I'm talking about 70% of the public having to spend 10 hours a day working for a living, and the rest of the time dealing with homes and families and all the rest. Not many people have the spare time or the interest to dedicate to understanding cross-border legal issues, trade deals, tax policy and the like. It's nothing to do with being incapable, it's all about putting the decisions in the hands of people who by definition have the time and reason, because it's their job.
No, I get that, but (a) I'm not sure it's really that hard for people to understand and (b) you're still left with the logical extension to your argument that actually people shouldn't be trusted to vote in GEs either as there's a lot more to consider, as you've got a raft of policies from each party rather than just a (relatively) simple in/out question.
In some respects I agree with you, but as I said, I'm just really uncomfortable with this position because of the implications.
Lonewolves wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Whoever it is who does those cartoon things isn't clever or funny, myp. And you continually misuse them, too.
They're hilarious and brilliant. And these are totally relevant to you, Mr Constant Devil's Advocate for no reason.
In that case I don't think you know what Devil's Advocate means, myp.
Oh, do tell me then. I haven't been patronised enough by you recently.
Can you show me one example of me patronising you, rather than the other way around? It's not me that's constantly been responding to your posts with little but snark myp. I genuinely don't know why you apparently have such a problem with me, but there we are.
Sorry, I'm having a bad day. Been working since 6am.
No worries, sorry chap.
Grim... wrote:
Cras wrote:
Having that on my tombstone.
Really crap last words though.
Fook sake, only took me 4 attempts... 
Cavey wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Cras wrote:
Having that on my tombstone.
What does that mean? The Apple thjng?
It's a comedic rhetorical response
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/how_do_y ... hem_apples
Still, if you have to explain a joke, huh...
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/how_do_y ... hem_apples
Still, if you have to explain a joke, huh...
It's an old person's joke mimi.
True, to be fair.
I think that there were numerous reasons to believe that you could win a referendum. While not everyone wanting to leave the EU would vote have voted UKIP, the Leave vote started from a locked in voter base of only 12%. Yes, a lot of Tories would also vote leave, but for any other party supporter the presumption would have been a strong bias to remain. If you've got the wrong data, then you can derive a 60% Remain vote from that background. In addition, I don't necessarily think that Cameron felt 'Empowered' by Indyref, but time and again, when push comes to shove in a close election, there is a very late swing towards 'Keeping things as they are' out of fear.
I think the push for turnout is likely to have backfired a little, as I think (no evidence for this, at all) there were far more borderline exit voters than borderline remainers, who were encouraged to turn out by that.
I also get, to a degree, why in the circumstances that a win for remain was considered a near certain, it would make sense to draw a line under it for a period of time, and not just to shut up UKIP/backbenchers. The EU has been an unnecessary distraction for far too long, with the will we/won't we argument. A referendum that wouldn't be repeated for at least 10 years would reduce the noise for a while at least.
What I don't get, and what I think fucked him, is the undue haste with which he called the referendum after the negotiations. He had until the end of 2017 (per the conservative 2015 manifesto) to hold it, and didn't give any time whatsoever before announcing the date. There was no time to properly digest the opinion and reaction to the negotiations. We (were) in a growing economy and the presumption was that the standard of living would have been higher next year which would have helped the result. The Labour Party were already fucked in the house and anyone could have told you that Corbyn wasn't convinced, but that he probably wouldn't be leader in a years time anyway. I know the argument that "Corbyn fucked the country" is bollocks, but a slightly more invigorated labour campaign could have engineered the 0.9% swing to remain without too much hardship.
I think the push for turnout is likely to have backfired a little, as I think (no evidence for this, at all) there were far more borderline exit voters than borderline remainers, who were encouraged to turn out by that.
I also get, to a degree, why in the circumstances that a win for remain was considered a near certain, it would make sense to draw a line under it for a period of time, and not just to shut up UKIP/backbenchers. The EU has been an unnecessary distraction for far too long, with the will we/won't we argument. A referendum that wouldn't be repeated for at least 10 years would reduce the noise for a while at least.
What I don't get, and what I think fucked him, is the undue haste with which he called the referendum after the negotiations. He had until the end of 2017 (per the conservative 2015 manifesto) to hold it, and didn't give any time whatsoever before announcing the date. There was no time to properly digest the opinion and reaction to the negotiations. We (were) in a growing economy and the presumption was that the standard of living would have been higher next year which would have helped the result. The Labour Party were already fucked in the house and anyone could have told you that Corbyn wasn't convinced, but that he probably wouldn't be leader in a years time anyway. I know the argument that "Corbyn fucked the country" is bollocks, but a slightly more invigorated labour campaign could have engineered the 0.9% swing to remain without too much hardship.
Meh.
Here's where I remember it from (spoiler: last 10 seconds of the clip)
Here's where I remember it from (spoiler: last 10 seconds of the clip)
I love that comic strip with Myp in it.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
I think that there were numerous reasons to believe that you could win a referendum. While not everyone wanting to leave the EU would vote have voted UKIP, the Leave vote started from a locked in voter base of only 12%. Yes, a lot of Tories would also vote leave, but for any other party supporter the presumption would have been a strong bias to remain. If you've got the wrong data, then you can derive a 60% Remain vote from that background. In addition, I don't necessarily think that Cameron felt 'Empowered' by Indyref, but time and again, when push comes to shove in a close election, there is a very late swing towards 'Keeping things as they are' out of fear.
I think the push for turnout is likely to have backfired a little, as I think (no evidence for this, at all) there were far more borderline exit voters than borderline remainers, who were encouraged to turn out by that.
I also get, to a degree, why in the circumstances that a win for remain was considered a near certain, it would make sense to draw a line under it for a period of time, and not just to shut up UKIP/backbenchers. The EU has been an unnecessary distraction for far too long, with the will we/won't we argument. A referendum that wouldn't be repeated for at least 10 years would reduce the noise for a while at least.
What I don't get, and what I think fucked him, is the undue haste with which he called the referendum after the negotiations. He had until the end of 2017 (per the conservative 2015 manifesto) to hold it, and didn't give any time whatsoever before announcing the date. There was no time to properly digest the opinion and reaction to the negotiations. We (were) in a growing economy and the presumption was that the standard of living would have been higher next year which would have helped the result. The Labour Party were already fucked in the house and anyone could have told you that Corbyn wasn't convinced, but that he probably wouldn't be leader in a years time anyway. I know the argument that "Corbyn fucked the country" is bollocks, but a slightly more invigorated labour campaign could have engineered the 0.9% swing to remain without too much hardship.
I think the push for turnout is likely to have backfired a little, as I think (no evidence for this, at all) there were far more borderline exit voters than borderline remainers, who were encouraged to turn out by that.
I also get, to a degree, why in the circumstances that a win for remain was considered a near certain, it would make sense to draw a line under it for a period of time, and not just to shut up UKIP/backbenchers. The EU has been an unnecessary distraction for far too long, with the will we/won't we argument. A referendum that wouldn't be repeated for at least 10 years would reduce the noise for a while at least.
What I don't get, and what I think fucked him, is the undue haste with which he called the referendum after the negotiations. He had until the end of 2017 (per the conservative 2015 manifesto) to hold it, and didn't give any time whatsoever before announcing the date. There was no time to properly digest the opinion and reaction to the negotiations. We (were) in a growing economy and the presumption was that the standard of living would have been higher next year which would have helped the result. The Labour Party were already fucked in the house and anyone could have told you that Corbyn wasn't convinced, but that he probably wouldn't be leader in a years time anyway. I know the argument that "Corbyn fucked the country" is bollocks, but a slightly more invigorated labour campaign could have engineered the 0.9% swing to remain without too much hardship.
Like I said I understand his reasons for wanting a referendum and even thinking he would win, although it must always have felt like a gamble. From the moment it as announced I felt a sense of dread. But it was always to do with what amounts to Tory infighting. It was never about some strong desire for the will of the people to be heard and the result was either going to mean no real change for the country but a big win for the Tories or this absolute fucking shit show. I will always hold Cameron almost entirely responsible for this.
MrChris wrote:
Cras wrote:
I had this argument with Cavey a couple of weeks ago. I'm not talking about 'poor silly stupid' or 'poor and less well educated' at all. I'm talking about 70% of the public having to spend 10 hours a day working for a living, and the rest of the time dealing with homes and families and all the rest. Not many people have the spare time or the interest to dedicate to understanding cross-border legal issues, trade deals, tax policy and the like. It's nothing to do with being incapable, it's all about putting the decisions in the hands of people who by definition have the time and reason, because it's their job.
No, I get that, but (a) I'm not sure it's really that hard for people to understand.
LOLZ
markg wrote:
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
I think that there were numerous reasons to believe that you could win a referendum. While not everyone wanting to leave the EU would vote have voted UKIP, the Leave vote started from a locked in voter base of only 12%. Yes, a lot of Tories would also vote leave, but for any other party supporter the presumption would have been a strong bias to remain. If you've got the wrong data, then you can derive a 60% Remain vote from that background. In addition, I don't necessarily think that Cameron felt 'Empowered' by Indyref, but time and again, when push comes to shove in a close election, there is a very late swing towards 'Keeping things as they are' out of fear.
I think the push for turnout is likely to have backfired a little, as I think (no evidence for this, at all) there were far more borderline exit voters than borderline remainers, who were encouraged to turn out by that.
I also get, to a degree, why in the circumstances that a win for remain was considered a near certain, it would make sense to draw a line under it for a period of time, and not just to shut up UKIP/backbenchers. The EU has been an unnecessary distraction for far too long, with the will we/won't we argument. A referendum that wouldn't be repeated for at least 10 years would reduce the noise for a while at least.
What I don't get, and what I think fucked him, is the undue haste with which he called the referendum after the negotiations. He had until the end of 2017 (per the conservative 2015 manifesto) to hold it, and didn't give any time whatsoever before announcing the date. There was no time to properly digest the opinion and reaction to the negotiations. We (were) in a growing economy and the presumption was that the standard of living would have been higher next year which would have helped the result. The Labour Party were already fucked in the house and anyone could have told you that Corbyn wasn't convinced, but that he probably wouldn't be leader in a years time anyway. I know the argument that "Corbyn fucked the country" is bollocks, but a slightly more invigorated labour campaign could have engineered the 0.9% swing to remain without too much hardship.
I think the push for turnout is likely to have backfired a little, as I think (no evidence for this, at all) there were far more borderline exit voters than borderline remainers, who were encouraged to turn out by that.
I also get, to a degree, why in the circumstances that a win for remain was considered a near certain, it would make sense to draw a line under it for a period of time, and not just to shut up UKIP/backbenchers. The EU has been an unnecessary distraction for far too long, with the will we/won't we argument. A referendum that wouldn't be repeated for at least 10 years would reduce the noise for a while at least.
What I don't get, and what I think fucked him, is the undue haste with which he called the referendum after the negotiations. He had until the end of 2017 (per the conservative 2015 manifesto) to hold it, and didn't give any time whatsoever before announcing the date. There was no time to properly digest the opinion and reaction to the negotiations. We (were) in a growing economy and the presumption was that the standard of living would have been higher next year which would have helped the result. The Labour Party were already fucked in the house and anyone could have told you that Corbyn wasn't convinced, but that he probably wouldn't be leader in a years time anyway. I know the argument that "Corbyn fucked the country" is bollocks, but a slightly more invigorated labour campaign could have engineered the 0.9% swing to remain without too much hardship.
Like I said I understand his reasons for wanting a referendum and even thinking he would win, although it must always have felt like a gamble. From the moment it as announced I felt a sense of dread. But it was always to do with what amounts to Tory infighting. It was never about some strong desire for the will of the people to be heard and the result was either going to mean no real change for the country but a big win for the Tories or this absolute fucking shit show. I will always hold Cameron almost entirely responsible for this.
Oh, I agree that the benefits for the country of a successful referendum were not the benefits for which it was held, and that given those quite narrow and personal benefits upon which it was held, it was always a unnecessary gamble.
Cras wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Cras wrote:
I had this argument with Cavey a couple of weeks ago. I'm not talking about 'poor silly stupid' or 'poor and less well educated' at all. I'm talking about 70% of the public having to spend 10 hours a day working for a living, and the rest of the time dealing with homes and families and all the rest. Not many people have the spare time or the interest to dedicate to understanding cross-border legal issues, trade deals, tax policy and the like. It's nothing to do with being incapable, it's all about putting the decisions in the hands of people who by definition have the time and reason, because it's their job.
No, I get that, but (a) I'm not sure it's really that hard for people to understand.
LOLZ
So people are too thick to understand it all then? And I note you have deftly ignored (b) again
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
What I don't get, and what I think fucked him, is the undue haste with which he called the referendum after the negotiations. He had until the end of 2017 (per the conservative 2015 manifesto) to hold it, and didn't give any time whatsoever before announcing the date. There was no time to properly digest the opinion and reaction to the negotiations. We (were) in a growing economy and the presumption was that the standard of living would have been higher next year which would have helped the result.
On that note: the Scottish indyref was based around a highly detailed (670 page!) white paper laying out the plan, which was published fully 10 months in advance and then analysed to death by every think-tank and any journalist who cared to. The EU indyref was a slogan on a bus, a racist poster, and a few soundbites. What the actual fuck?!
Brilliantly it looks like Corbyn may not actually be able to get his name on the ballot paper for any leadership election, as he needs 50 MPs or MEPs to secure a nomination (or so says the Grauniad), and his "team" (Seumas Milne and a dog, isn't it?) are getting legal advice.
MrChris wrote:
So people are too thick to understand it all then? And I note you have deftly ignored (b) again
We (broadly) trust people to vote on philosophy in a GE. "Do you think we should spend more money on public services, or have austerity?", for example. Relatively few people get buyer's remorse from a GE vote, because I think most voters have a handle on the broad strokes of the outcome of that vote. Whereas the referendum was a very specific point which (I believe is now well demonstrated) people failed to grasp and hence answered a very different question.
You can pick between Labour and Tory based on what you know about it. The consequences are fairly obvious before a word of campaigning is spoken. But as Cras says, understanding the consequences of leaving the EU is far harder.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
MrChris wrote:
So people are too thick to understand it all then? And I note you have deftly ignored (b) again
We (broadly) trust people to vote on philosophy in a GE. "Do you think we should spend more money on public services, or have austerity?", for example. Relatively few people get buyer's remorse from a GE vote, because I think most voters have a handle on the broad strokes of the outcome of that vote. Whereas the referendum was a very specific point which (I believe is now well demonstrated) people failed to grasp and hence answered a very different question.
You can pick between Labour and Tory based on what you know about it. The consequences are fairly obvious before a word of campaigning is spoken. But as Cras says, understanding the consequences of leaving the EU is far harder.
Again, I'm just profoundly uncomfortable with the direction of Cras's position. People are entitled to be stupid and ignorant if they choose to be, and they're entitled to vote based on flimsy arguments they don't understand. That's democracy - otherwise we're back to "elect a better people".
MrChris wrote:
Brilliantly it looks like Corbyn may not actually be able to get his name on the ballot paper for any leadership election, as he needs 50 MPs or MEPs to secure a nomination (or so says the Grauniad), and his "team" (Seumas Milne and a dog, isn't it?) are getting legal advice.
I thought I'd read that a standing leader automatically qualifies for the group stages without having to go through a qualification process? I mean, even the Champions League has corrected that anomaly now.
MrChris wrote:
Again, I'm just profoundly uncomfortable with the direction of Cras's position.
He needs a woman to help him choose clothes. And to stop manspreading.
MrChris wrote:
Brilliantly it looks like Corbyn may not actually be able to get his name on the ballot paper for any leadership election, as he needs 50 MPs or MEPs to secure a nomination (or so says the Grauniad), and his "team" (Seumas Milne and a dog, isn't it?) are getting legal advice.
This is fairly hotly contested. The exact rule is
Quote:
"any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."
which is entirely ambiguous about whether the incumbent counts as being "nominated" or if it's only for the challengers. This happened in 1988, and the incumbent (Kinnock) did seek and receive the 20% support; but of course, he could, so it didn't legally test the wording of the clause. Fuck knows what will happen. A court challenge would be beyond farce and therefore entirely in keeping with the course the party is taking.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Brilliantly it looks like Corbyn may not actually be able to get his name on the ballot paper for any leadership election, as he needs 50 MPs or MEPs to secure a nomination (or so says the Grauniad), and his "team" (Seumas Milne and a dog, isn't it?) are getting legal advice.
I thought I'd read that a standing leader automatically qualifies for the group stages without having to go through a qualification process? I mean, even the Champions League has corrected that anomaly now.
That's what Corbyn thinks, certainly, but it looks like it might not be the case:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... parliament
FTSE 100 and 250 both really steaming ahead now btw.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Brilliantly it looks like Corbyn may not actually be able to get his name on the ballot paper for any leadership election, as he needs 50 MPs or MEPs to secure a nomination (or so says the Grauniad), and his "team" (Seumas Milne and a dog, isn't it?) are getting legal advice.
This is fairly hotly contested. The exact rule is
Quote:
"any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."
which is entirely ambiguous about whether the incumbent counts as being "nominated" or if it's only for the challengers. This happened in 1988, and the incumbent (Kinnock) did seek and receive the 20% support; but of course, he could, so it didn't legally test the wording of the clause. Fuck knows what will happen. A court challenge would be beyond farce and therefore entirely in keeping with the course the party is taking.
How is that ambiguous!?!? "Any nomination" is pretty clear, isn't it? And an incumbent leader might not necessarily wish to re-stand, so any other reading would require the current leader to stand again.
As for Corbyn: truly the man has no shame (or class).
MrChris wrote:
Again, I'm just profoundly uncomfortable with the direction of Cras's position. People are entitled to be stupid and ignorant if they choose to be, and they're entitled to vote based on flimsy arguments they don't understand. That's democracy - otherwise we're back to "elect a better people".
The way to resolve this is by holding referendums where the matter at hand can be meaningfully understood by the layman. There's no room for nuance. "Leave the EU" is not in that category, because (as we now see) leaving the EU doesn't involve us leaving the EFTA or not paying the EU lots of money or stopping immigration. "Would you like to fuck our economy over for no tangible gain (Y/N)" would have been more useful.
We need a referendum to tell us if we should have referendums.
I'd just do it via a sample - market research our way to democracy!
A referendum is just a survey with a posh name.
