Vince Cable - discuss
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
In this instance you can have it both ways.
The representative democracy worked to give the referendum on a matter where there was significant enough feeling that the people wish to represent themselves.
.
In this instance we did have it both ways. We elected a government to represent us & they then gave us a referendum. I don't mean to be prosaic but you started it! It was a purely political calculation & given he resigned after lighting the blue touch paper, a poor one for Dave.The representative democracy worked to give the referendum on a matter where there was significant enough feeling that the people wish to represent themselves.
.
Disagree though on referenda in general. It's insufficient to argue they're worthy for epochal moments, we don't hold them for wars, I see no reason why one is called for to determine some nebulous notion of control or sovereignty heavily misrepresented by one side or the other. I pay my MP to do this stuff on my behalf via my democratic franchise & I'm content with that arrangement.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Disagree though on referenda in general. It's insufficient to argue they're worthy for epochal moments, we don't hold them for wars, I see no reason why one is called for to determine some nebulous notion of control or sovereignty heavily misrepresented by one side or the other. I pay my MP to do this stuff on my behalf via my democratic franchise & I'm content with that arrangement.
Events can be urgent, important, or urgant and important in varying degrees; holding a referendum on a major constitutional matter likewise. War is something that any one government acting on its own is unlikely to have total control over in terms of timing and other factors including how many third parties get involved. Being a member (or not) of the EU is/was something that benefited from the luxury of importance without immediate urgency. The analogy with war is superficially attractive but it turns out to bw weak. In addition, as with many constitutional matters, past use offers no guide to the future. We may 'let' and pay elected MPs decide things for us and if so then letting them decide when to go to the people with a referendum is one of those things. MPs decided to hold a referendum on continued EU membership, not us. No part of your argument above holds up.
Eddie Strohacker said:
In this instance we did have it both ways. We elected a government to represent us & they then gave us a referendum. I don't mean to be prosaic but you started it! It was a purely political calculation & given he resigned after lighting the blue touch paper, a poor one for Dave.
Disagree though on referenda in general. It's insufficient to argue they're worthy for epochal moments, we don't hold them for wars, I see no reason why one is called for to determine some nebulous notion of control or sovereignty heavily misrepresented by one side or the other. I pay my MP to do this stuff on my behalf via my democratic franchise & I'm content with that arrangement.
No I never, it was the Romans!Disagree though on referenda in general. It's insufficient to argue they're worthy for epochal moments, we don't hold them for wars, I see no reason why one is called for to determine some nebulous notion of control or sovereignty heavily misrepresented by one side or the other. I pay my MP to do this stuff on my behalf via my democratic franchise & I'm content with that arrangement.
I'm glad you're happy with that. You don't have to vote in a referendum. As noted, for some things I'm not happy about it. And I'm even more comfortable in that unhappiness knowing how their representation would likely have panned out on this topic. I appreciate they are not "delegates", but the state of debate on the topic indicated they weren't fit to determine direction themselves (I'm not convinced the wider electorate were any worse positioned).
Wars are different. Though Blair, and to be fair the government/parties of the day stepped well over that line IMO.
Incidentally, sovereignty is important to me. Control/decision making about own futures should not be surrendered so easily. The EU was drifting down a path in that respect that I did not, and do not, like. It will lead to serious issues in the EU IMO.
turbobloke said:
. No part of your argument above holds up.
I'm afraid that last line is an exemplar non sequitur. Listing a bunch of assertions about why they're a good idea doesn't cancel out the contrary view that they're not, however, to elaborate further, they demonstrably undermine parliamentary sovereignty, it doesn't matter whether or not parliament votes to hold one, the effect is the same. Parliament makes laws and only Parliament. Devolving decision making to the public creates delays, we are experiencing that now. Delays lead to uncertainty which in turn creates stagnation.Reducing involved scenarios to simple yes/no choices oversimplifies complex issues & boy oh boy, have we ever done that now. The fall out from this will be felt for a decade or more & the campaign around it was reduced to misleading soundbites & base appeals to emotion - Brussels can't tell us what to do etc. etc.. Then you get into unequal resources.creating an advantage for one side or the other. Paradoxically I suspect the reverse occurred last year but in principle it's a serious risk.
Referenda are a straight majority form of decision making & that alienates significant minorities in the outcome. 52/48 will dog leave & so it should.Here, there is no constitutional framework on when or whether they should take place & that in and of itself lays them open to political whim & calculation, undermining their intrinsic value, so no I don't think they're a great idea generally, creating as many, if not more problems than they solve.
s2art said:
ATG said:
Of all the parties, a small centrist one is best positioned to be able to pull off a Macronesque insurgency. A moribund Conservative Party and hopeless Labour Party offers a once in a generation opportunity for centrists to steal a march. Where are they? In their barracks conducting an inventory of their ration packs and sandals.
But doesnt the same criticism apply. With Macron they found a charismatic centrist. The Tories under May must be considered fairly centrist, not much charisma there,though. Replace May with a suitable leader and......
t together and occupying the middle ground would currently trounce the other two. It's a golden opportunity for all if them. Point about Lib Dems is that in the normal run of things they get squashed btwn the two major parties whatever they do. It is rare that both major parties have crippled themselves at the same time. This is an enormous and very rare opportunity for the Lib Dems and they are going to squander it.Eddie Strohacker said:
turbobloke said:
. No part of your argument above holds up.
I'm afraid that last line is an exemplar non sequitur. Listing a bunch of assertions about why they're a good idea doesn't cancel out the contrary view that they're not, however, to elaborate further, they demonstrably undermine parliamentary sovereignty, it doesn't matter whether or not parliament votes to hold one, the effect is the same. Parliament makes laws and only Parliament. Devolving decision making to the public creates delays, we are experiencing that now. Delays lead to uncertainty which in turn creates stagnation.Reducing involved scenarios to simple yes/no choices oversimplifies complex issues & boy oh boy, have we ever done that now. The fall out from this will be felt for a decade or more & the campaign around it was reduced to misleading soundbites & base appeals to emotion - Brussels can't tell us what to do etc. etc.. Then you get into unequal resources.creating an advantage for one side or the other. Paradoxically I suspect the reverse occurred last year but in principle it's a serious risk.
Referenda are a straight majority form of decision making & that alienates significant minorities in the outcome. 52/48 will dog leave & so it should.Here, there is no constitutional framework on when or whether they should take place & that in and of itself lays them open to political whim & calculation, undermining their intrinsic value, so no I don't think they're a great idea generally, creating as many, if not more problems than they solve.
s2art said:
I disagree. When we vote for a representative government we are, in effect, giving our individual power to said representatives. What we do not do is allow said representatives to give away our power to third parties not under our democratic control. That is why referenda are essential when transfer of power is involved.
That's if you a) believe we did that & b) don't trust your elected representatives with the power you entrusted them & in that case, why not just riot?Eddie Strohacker said:
...& in that case, why not just riot?
Because that's not the done thing. Or shouldn't be - hasn't stopped it happening a few times though.Who knows, if control had continued to be handed to the EU and a referendum not given, maybe it would have ended up that way? Surely a referendum is a better means of addressing it?
Murph7355 said:
Because that's not the done thing. Or shouldn't be - hasn't stopped it happening a few times though.
Who knows, if control had continued to be handed to the EU and a referendum not given, maybe it would have ended up that way? Surely a referendum is a better means of addressing it?
I sincerely doubt that. People riot over food shortages, police brutality & poorly thought out changes to the rates Who knows, if control had continued to be handed to the EU and a referendum not given, maybe it would have ended up that way? Surely a referendum is a better means of addressing it?
I'm not sure why I'm arguing this, it's miles off topic, I simply believe we elect people to make laws on our behalf, not to hand lawmaking back to us. It's the inverse of leave's sovereignty argument. You want parliament to be sovereign? Fine, then make sure it is.
Why keep dogs & bark?
Eddie Strohacker said:
I sincerely doubt that. People riot over food shortages, police brutality & poorly thought out changes to the rates
I'm not sure why I'm arguing this, it's miles off topic, I simply believe we elect people to make laws on our behalf, not to hand lawmaking back to us. It's the inverse of leave's sovereignty argument. You want parliament to be sovereign? Fine, then make sure it is.
Why keep dogs & bark?
We elect MPs to Parliament to set our policy and law - the autonomy and effectiveness of which was being insidiously usurped by the EU.I'm not sure why I'm arguing this, it's miles off topic, I simply believe we elect people to make laws on our behalf, not to hand lawmaking back to us. It's the inverse of leave's sovereignty argument. You want parliament to be sovereign? Fine, then make sure it is.
Why keep dogs & bark?
Why keep dogs and give the burglars permission to chain and muzzle them, so all they can do is whimper and watch?
Some things are clearly bigger than the delegated authority.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Disagree though on referenda in general. It's insufficient to argue they're worthy for epochal moments, we don't hold them for wars, I see no reason why one is called for to determine some nebulous notion of control or sovereignty heavily misrepresented by one side or the other. I pay my MP to do this stuff on my behalf via my democratic franchise & I'm content with that arrangement.
I agree with you. As you say, we pay MPs, but more particularly vote for them, and they, or at least Cameron, abrogated their responsibility. I don't think it would be a good idea to have my family vote on how my house should be rewired. The problem with politics is it is like religion: people tend to vote according to their environment. I am bemused by those who stick with a particular party. It seems nonsensical, like staying with an energy supplier. But then that was my father's view as well and I accepted it uncritically, so I'm like the rest I suppose.
I like Vince Cable. Not only that, we need a healthy third party. At the moment we have a tory party self destructing under the current and previous leaders, giving us the possibility of Corbyn post brexit. There's no chance of a majority being satisfied of the result of the negotiations. The 48% is always going to be dissatisfied and it would seem that there is a significant number of the 52% who did not want a hard brexit.
Cable, though, is a temp. There's no way he could lead the party to become a significant threat to labour. May does not relate to the public and she's up against a bloke whose only strength is that ability.
The EU referendum in particular came about as a result of an irretrievably disunited Tory party over decades on Europe. UKIP only came about because the headbanger wing of the Conservatives failed to carry the argument. Couple that with years & years of drip drip anti EU rhetoric & propaganda & you've created the conditions in which an entirely beige Prime Minister is moved to promise a parliament subverting referendum in order to preserve his own backside. Bad move.
Now, since this is PH, I am about to receive an avalanche of denial & scorn. Whatever. I won't be getting into it for a second night but it's nonetheless the case. If you're a leave voter, referenda are fking awesome & that's that.
As for Vince, he enjoys the luxury of doing what he wants until pension day. In theory there won't be an election for five years (lol) and if there is, his lot won't be bothering the coat peg administrator at the palace of Westminster to any great extent. Which is a shame actually, since as noted above, the parties are moribund & we're entertaining a bunch of 17th century religious regressives to keep the whole circus on the road, much to our collective shame.
Now, since this is PH, I am about to receive an avalanche of denial & scorn. Whatever. I won't be getting into it for a second night but it's nonetheless the case. If you're a leave voter, referenda are f
king awesome & that's that.As for Vince, he enjoys the luxury of doing what he wants until pension day. In theory there won't be an election for five years (lol) and if there is, his lot won't be bothering the coat peg administrator at the palace of Westminster to any great extent. Which is a shame actually, since as noted above, the parties are moribund & we're entertaining a bunch of 17th century religious regressives to keep the whole circus on the road, much to our collective shame.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Jo Swinson is that imo. ViC is the right guy for now, to steady the ship dinghy after the bloke from the lower sixth ballsed up his chance & Clegg got played by Dave & Gideon.
I've seen her a couple of times, once being when she refused to go for the top job. She impressed me to an extent, but I think she's a bit like Cable, her age is against her. There's too much else going on in her life at the moment, what with a new baby. We need someone whom the public can take to. She speaks well, and seems to have a sense of humour. I'm not sure she'd say her wildest time was running through a field. Someone to take the shine off Corbyn.
I've just looked it up: she's literally half Cable's age, and older than I thought she was. So perhaps it is her time.
She might even pick up the odd Remainer vote too. Then again, probably not if she repeats Farron's mistake of thinking 48% align with him.
Great to see the thread roll on with the not so subtle undertone tone of ' I wouldn't dream of devaluing a persons vote on their age previously, but for Brexit I'll make an exception' .
Great to see the thread roll on with the not so subtle undertone tone of ' I wouldn't dream of devaluing a persons vote on their age previously, but for Brexit I'll make an exception' .
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff