Sir Ed Davey - Lib. Dem Leader
Discussion
JuanCarlosFandango said:
General elections are general. I think it is somewhat established that such major constitutional changes require a direct popular mandate.
Supposing a party got elected with an apparently sensible manifesto, but also dropped in that they would abolish further elections or ban opposition parties. This could not be construed as democratic just because people had the option not to vote for it. Democracy implies certain rules of engagement. Restraints on what an elected government can do. They aren't written down in this country but established by custom.
Yes that's a fair point too but I think most people would see a bit of a difference between it being the headline policy v "well you should have read page 15 paragraph 2 we did tell you we were going to take one of your kidneys".Supposing a party got elected with an apparently sensible manifesto, but also dropped in that they would abolish further elections or ban opposition parties. This could not be construed as democratic just because people had the option not to vote for it. Democracy implies certain rules of engagement. Restraints on what an elected government can do. They aren't written down in this country but established by custom.
As it was it was their headline policy and we know how that worked out for them.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Yes that's a fair point too but I think most people would see a bit of a difference between it being the headline policy v "well you should have read page 15 paragraph 2 we did tell you we were going to take one of your kidneys".
As it was it was their headline policy and we know how that worked out for them.
They could make it a headline policy then. Dress it up a bit. "Our economy is held back by constant political wrangling and an uninformed electorate making irrational decisions based on emotions." Or "For the sake of national unity we need to end all the bickering and work together." It would still be undemocratic IMO, even if it won an election. As it was it was their headline policy and we know how that worked out for them.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Whether you agree with union funding I think there's probably an argument that at least you know why it's there and where it came from isn't there?.....
Yup - the 1970s.Those days are gone, the RMT just don't want to admit it.
tbf donations to parties across the board need a thorough revisit.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: People can change their mind in a democracy.
If any party had run on a clear manifesto of "vote for us and we'll rejoin the EU" and won a majority that would have been a democratic mandate to rejoin the EU in my view.
I'm really not sure how it's any different to the next General Election when all sorts will be on the table (though probably not EU related) and people will cast their vote accordingly.
These sort of points always serve to amuse as they get used to support all different angles.If any party had run on a clear manifesto of "vote for us and we'll rejoin the EU" and won a majority that would have been a democratic mandate to rejoin the EU in my view.
I'm really not sure how it's any different to the next General Election when all sorts will be on the table (though probably not EU related) and people will cast their vote accordingly.
GE's aren't binary choices and are won and lost on multiple policy points.
The EU referendum opened up a bit of a Pandora's box...but as noted above, was a choice by 17m people. Johnson's majority was won by 14m. That's only ever been beaten as an outright number once in our history, by about 125k votes...ironically by John Major
Untangling that multiple democratic mess is very far from straightforward!
Personally....I don't think our elected representatives should be able to abrogate (/delegate/donate/transfer - however you want to phrase it) any powers we let them borrow to supranational bodies or anywhere else really. IF there's a good reason to do it, I support putting that to the electorate. And none of that should be done without very clearly defined "escape routes" from that movement of power.
To put that sort of thing to the electorate, having pre-defined rules of engagement would seem like a good idea. Not s
t made up on the spot. But none of that is going to happen because no party is going to puh for it, not even the holier than thou (in recent times) LibDems.
Murph7355 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Whether you agree with union funding I think there's probably an argument that at least you know why it's there and where it came from isn't there?.....
Yup - the 1970s.Those days are gone, the RMT just don't want to admit it.
tbf donations to parties across the board need a thorough revisit.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: People can change their mind in a democracy.
Individually yes of course, but not collectively as a whim though, there are due processes - which happen also to provide some element of safeguarding against whimsical changes occurring and repeating at short notice.Due process changing the 1970s mentality union funding thing would be a good place to start.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:768 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: "If you vote for us in a General Election we will revoke Article 50" seems a very clear position even if you don't agree with it.
Presumably you didn't vote for them and nor did lots of other people so they didn't get to do what they promised they would if enough people did.
Seems pretty democratic to me.
Does it seem democratic to you to ask the same question multiple times of an electorate and only enact the answers you want to hear?Presumably you didn't vote for them and nor did lots of other people so they didn't get to do what they promised they would if enough people did.
Seems pretty democratic to me.
If any party had run on a clear manifesto of "vote for us and we'll rejoin the EU" and won a majority that would have been a democratic mandate to rejoin the EU in my view.
I'm really not sure how it's any different to the next General Election when all sorts will be on the table (though probably not EU related) and people will cast their vote accordingly.
turbobloke said:
Individually yes of course, but not collectively as a whim though, there are due processes - which happen also to provide some element of safeguarding against whimsical changes occurring and repeating at short notice.
Due process changing the 1970s mentality union funding thing would be a good place to start.
Yes, due process. It’s called a general election. You seem to be very keen on sovereignty right up until it is something you don’t like.Due process changing the 1970s mentality union funding thing would be a good place to start.
As for the unions, in the news today we have barristers threatening to strike and a chronic shortage of dentists. We have a shortage of workers in the UK. Don’t you think perhaps that the number of unions showing discontent and the number of problems we have with filling vital jobs that, perhaps, there is something fundamentally wrong.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Take it as what you like.
The Lib Dems campaigned with joining the EU as their flagship policy and I didn't vote for them and nor did most of the public.
I didn't whine it was undemocratic as that's how democracy works.
It's not as simple as that. Or shouldn't be. The Lib Dems campaigned with joining the EU as their flagship policy and I didn't vote for them and nor did most of the public.
I didn't whine it was undemocratic as that's how democracy works.
I do suspect that their one policy did for them. But that's not really the point. Getting a "mandate" is a pretty complicated thing to determine and needs a lot more consideration than it's given here IMO.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:768 said:
I'll take that as a yes.
Take it as what you like.The Lib Dems campaigned with joining the EU as their flagship policy and I didn't vote for them and nor did most of the public.
I didn't whine it was undemocratic as that's how democracy works.
The scenario I painted is "If you vote for us in the General Election and we win a majority we'll re-join the EU" which is pretty much what the Lib Dems said.
If you want to be Mr Logic about other scenarios then by all means fill your boots but I'd say my scenario is pretty straightforward to most people except the ones who froth at the idea of Brexit ever being "taken away" from them.
If you want to be Mr Logic about other scenarios then by all means fill your boots but I'd say my scenario is pretty straightforward to most people except the ones who froth at the idea of Brexit ever being "taken away" from them.
Electro1980 said:
turbobloke said:
Individually yes of course, but not collectively as a whim though, there are due processes - which happen also to provide some element of safeguarding against whimsical changes occurring and repeating at short notice.
Due process changing the 1970s mentality union funding thing would be a good place to start.
Yes, due process. It’s called a general election. You seem to be very keen on sovereignty right up until it is something you don’t like.Due process changing the 1970s mentality union funding thing would be a good place to start.
Secondly it's nonsense. Due process provides not only a quality check but also one obvious safeguard against whimsical levels of instability.
768 said:
I'd have no issue with a democratic vote on rejoining.
Me neither but it's dreamworld for now.768 said:
But asking the same question twice without enacting the first result isn't democracy.
It's what we've seen since the vote 6 years ago, sore loserville.As we're out, the EU tactic of repeating a referendum in short order when it gives the result they don't like, no longer applies.
Carl_Manchester said:
Ed who ? Waste of space 86 said:
Carl_Manchester said:
Ed who ? Waste of space Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff