What a disaster the Tories are.
Discussion
JawKnee said:
Yes, I understand that's how referenda work and it was the largest turnout in however many years but let's not pretend that by virtue it means the majority of people in this country think that way.
What it means is that of the people who cared enough to vote, a majority wanted to leave. 17 million yes, 16 million no. The rest said "meh".
Their opinion doesn't count.
think about the construction of that phrase "doesn't count".
Where does that come from?
It goes back to the latin Computare, to add up single units, as you would do when deciding who had won a show of hands. The very concept of the colloquial phrase we use to describe an irrelevant opinion has its roots in adding up votes in a legislative assembly.
I've been considering political parallels for Brexit. Perhaps Brexit will be to the Tories what the Iraq war was to Labour where it had support at first but as it dragged on support narrowed very considerably. Now many people now feel lied to about the affair and few admit to recall supporting it.
That's the thing about political views I suppose, they change with experience.
That's the thing about political views I suppose, they change with experience.
.speedy_thrills said:
I've been considering political parallels for Brexit. Perhaps Brexit will be to the Tories what the Iraq war was to Labour where it had support at first but as it dragged on support narrowed very considerably. Now many people now feel lied to about the affair and few admit to recall supporting it.
That's the thing about political views I suppose, they change with experience.
In some ways - I would suspect for a lot of people on both sides they will keep their views as they are so firmly entrenched. However it may well be a lot of Brexiters blame the government of the day messing it up (whether it is the Conservatives now or perhaps Labour if they come into powder in the next election as that would likely be when we start seeing the bigger consequences of it). However with a 1% swing in opinions it wouldn't take too many people changing their mind to make it a minority. Or the opposite could happen - Europe collapses and some people then change the other way.That's the thing about political views I suppose, they change with experience.
speedy_thrills said:
I've been considering political parallels for Brexit. Perhaps Brexit will be to the Tories what the Iraq war was to Labour where it had support at first but as it dragged on support narrowed very considerably. Now many people now feel lied to about the affair and few admit to recall supporting it.
That's the thing about political views I suppose, they change with experience.
Well, there is talk in the papers today of a snap election. That's the thing about political views I suppose, they change with experience.
The suggestion is that May would increase her majority by at least 30.
don4l said:
Well, there is talk in the papers today of a snap election.
The suggestion is that May would increase her majority by at least 30.
The Tories are riding high in the polls at the moment so that doesn't seem unreasonable. It would rely on Labour voting in favour of it though, which seems unlikely. The suggestion is that May would increase her majority by at least 30.
Trabi601 said:
gizlaroc said:
The problem with you and so many remainers and lefties, is you are all very vocal, you think you are a bit smarter than the rest, you all pat each other on the back and tell each other how wonderful you are, but what you don't realise is that most of the time rest are just laughing at you.
That was going quite well until you fell into the usual PH line of insulting 'lefties'. Because, the right never post anything self-congratulatory and definitely wouldn't have voted to remain (despite this being Tory policy right up until it became a vote of political survival)They say it very loudly and it is always said with such a nasty tone too.
The problem is, if you vote conservative it is difficult to shout about it as many policies are not polices that make people feel better, they tend to be quite nasty but needed to make sure we survive.
Labour policies all tend to sound great, more money for schools, more money for NHS, more money for services, more money for construction etc. etc. Of course that all sounds great, but the reality of doing that isn't quite so hot long term, as although it may make everyone feel great at the time the following years it hits hard and many can't cope with the hit.
You have to laugh, when 17 million vote to leave and its a majority with full legitamacy.
So I guess all the leavers will be opposing this change to union voting rights.
What is being proposed?
According to the Department for Business the changes to the strike ballot rules are likely to include:
At least 50% of members entitled to vote must do so for ballots on industrial action to be valid. Currently balloting rules do not require any specific level of participation by union members.
Ballots currently require a simple majority to back action.
So I guess all the leavers will be opposing this change to union voting rights.
What is being proposed?
According to the Department for Business the changes to the strike ballot rules are likely to include:
At least 50% of members entitled to vote must do so for ballots on industrial action to be valid. Currently balloting rules do not require any specific level of participation by union members.
Ballots currently require a simple majority to back action.
It's rather ironic, isn't it?
I've read posts here where unions have been slated for taking strike action based on a majority vote of those who turned out to vote - saying exactly as you've posted - the threshold should be over 50% of those eligible to vote.
But, because the referendum had their desired outcome, it's all perfectly fine that less than 50% of eligible voters is enough to push it through.
I've read posts here where unions have been slated for taking strike action based on a majority vote of those who turned out to vote - saying exactly as you've posted - the threshold should be over 50% of those eligible to vote.
But, because the referendum had their desired outcome, it's all perfectly fine that less than 50% of eligible voters is enough to push it through.
Trabi601 said:
It's rather ironic, isn't it?
I've read posts here where unions have been slated for taking strike action based on a majority vote of those who turned out to vote - saying exactly as you've posted - the threshold should be over 50% of those eligible to vote.
But, because the referendum had their desired outcome, it's all perfectly fine that less than 50% of eligible voters is enough to push it through.
It's not really the same though is it?I've read posts here where unions have been slated for taking strike action based on a majority vote of those who turned out to vote - saying exactly as you've posted - the threshold should be over 50% of those eligible to vote.
But, because the referendum had their desired outcome, it's all perfectly fine that less than 50% of eligible voters is enough to push it through.
Unions can cause untold misery to the public on the basis that three men and the tea lady want to wear a red uniform, not a blue one.
The referendum had massive buy in, 72% voted. It cost a fortune and took a long time. If a 50% minimum was required what would we do now? Go through it all again? More cost, more delay, more uncertainty for business, more division? Or just stop and kid on everything's fine?
Brexit affects us all so we all had a say, whether we used it or not. Unions can affect us all and virtually none of us get a say, what with it being members only.
I don't see how you can compare the two.
Or why don't we go the whole hog and if LU want to strike we ballot all Londoners? Let's see how much real sympathy they get from their customers.
Brexit has the ability to cause misery for tens of millions of people. Why shouldn't we insist that there was a threshold of 50% of registered voters?
If we are going to apply this to the working man protecting his rights in the workplace, then we really do have to apply it to something which will have an irreversible impact on millions.
If we are going to apply this to the working man protecting his rights in the workplace, then we really do have to apply it to something which will have an irreversible impact on millions.
Why is everyone talking about Brexit? There are other threads where we can discuss Brexit issues.
This thread is about what a disaster the Tories are.
So, can we all agree that if we hold a snap election, that Labour will have a landslide victory?
The only way that we can answer that question is to actually have a snap election.
Bring it on!
This thread is about what a disaster the Tories are.
So, can we all agree that if we hold a snap election, that Labour will have a landslide victory?
The only way that we can answer that question is to actually have a snap election.
Bring it on!
Trabi601 said:
Brexit has the ability to cause misery for tens of millions of people. Why shouldn't we insist that there was a threshold of 50% of registered voters?
Insist all you want, but it's too late.Trabi601 said:
If we are going to apply this to the working man protecting his rights in the workplace, then we really do have to apply it to something which will have an irreversible impact on millions.
If you can't see the obvious difference between a referendum and Union strikes, then you need help.Trabi601 said:
Brexit has the ability to cause misery for tens of millions of people. Why shouldn't we insist that there was a threshold of 50% of registered voters?
If we are going to apply this to the working man protecting his rights in the workplace, then we really do have to apply it to something which will have an irreversible impact on millions.
So why did nobody suggest a minimum turnout or a supermajority when the referendum was passed?If we are going to apply this to the working man protecting his rights in the workplace, then we really do have to apply it to something which will have an irreversible impact on millions.
Because they're generally held to be a bad idea, and put the "no" side at a significant advantage.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910...
From the bottom of page 42, "thresholds". The next section is about whether referendums should be binding or advisory is also interesting.
Trabi601 said:
Brexit has the ability to cause misery for tens of millions of people. Why shouldn't we insist that there was a threshold of 50% of registered voters?
And those tens of millions had their chance to vote under our standard election process.Of course there is also the unmentioned possibility that far from death and doom Brexit might actually turn out for the better for those millions. Will you be wanting another vote then?
I get it though, had the Scottish referendum gone the other way I'd probably be making the same arguments. But it wouldn't be through any objective thought process, it would be through blind hatred of the SNP and how they'd f
ked the UK. Your chance to argue for a 50% majority was back 3 years ago when you thought Remain was a stick on. Too late now.
Trabi601 said:
Brexit has the ability to cause misery for tens of millions of people. Why shouldn't we insist that there was a threshold of 50% of registered voters?
If we are going to apply this to the working man protecting his rights in the workplace, then we really do have to apply it to something which will have an irreversible impact on millions.
The distinction, to my mind, is that in the case of a strike vote you have a minority of people (train drivers, junior doctors, whatever) inflicting at best inconvenience and at worst all sorts of crap on the majority population. In a plebiscite (and general election) all eligible voters have the option to vote. Those who have been excluded are, in the majority, children.If we are going to apply this to the working man protecting his rights in the workplace, then we really do have to apply it to something which will have an irreversible impact on millions.
davepoth said:
The Tories are riding high in the polls at the moment so that doesn't seem unreasonable. It would rely on Labour voting in favour of it though, which seems unlikely.
Although, the PLP would really rather rid itself of Corbyn so may see a drubbing in a snap GE as the only way given current rules. You know, you're going very much down the road that the process is fine so long as it produces your desired outcome.
If you are right leaning and think union strike action should be curtailed - let's have a very strict threshold requirement.
If you've just narrowly won a referendum, but got the result you wanted, then it's absolutely fine that only around 35% of the eligible voters supported it.
The same attitudes of ambivalence exist in both scenarios - the non-voters are going to be split between those who are happy with whatever the result is and those who feel that the status quo will continue if they don't vote.
If you are right leaning and think union strike action should be curtailed - let's have a very strict threshold requirement.
If you've just narrowly won a referendum, but got the result you wanted, then it's absolutely fine that only around 35% of the eligible voters supported it.
The same attitudes of ambivalence exist in both scenarios - the non-voters are going to be split between those who are happy with whatever the result is and those who feel that the status quo will continue if they don't vote.
The disaster element of this fiasco is entirely a result of the fact that Cameron and his government and advisors clearly barely a thought to the possibility that they might not get the (Remain) result they wanted. There was no planning by the civil service. No discussion of or even thought given to what arrangements we would pursue outside the EU; and of course now we know not even legal clarity around how we actually trigger Article 50. They simply hadn't considered it.
When you think about this it displays a staggering arrogance. They offered a 50/50 choice and didn't even consider one of the potential outcomes as a possibility.
It’s like me asking my wife if she wants pork chops or jugged hare for dinner, knowing we have pork chops in the fridge and that I'll have to get on Google to find out what exactly jugged hare is and how you cook it then hope that I can buy some locally at 6:30pm.
The Tories are a disaster not because May is apparently committed to delivering the expressed wishes of the people, that is the minimum she needs to do. They are a disaster because the high handed arrogance of David Cameron has left them in a position they never wanted to be in.
I'm pretty sure that this debacle will go down in political folklore as a prime example of how a successful government can really stuff things up for themselves.
When you think about this it displays a staggering arrogance. They offered a 50/50 choice and didn't even consider one of the potential outcomes as a possibility.
It’s like me asking my wife if she wants pork chops or jugged hare for dinner, knowing we have pork chops in the fridge and that I'll have to get on Google to find out what exactly jugged hare is and how you cook it then hope that I can buy some locally at 6:30pm.
The Tories are a disaster not because May is apparently committed to delivering the expressed wishes of the people, that is the minimum she needs to do. They are a disaster because the high handed arrogance of David Cameron has left them in a position they never wanted to be in.
I'm pretty sure that this debacle will go down in political folklore as a prime example of how a successful government can really stuff things up for themselves.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff