General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

robinph

suicide_circus wrote: »

presumably because you disapprove of the way the vote went?

Nope, because a system that enables a wider spectrum of parties to be represented and mean that the government more closely resembles the views of the population who voted would be better.

A general election to pick the most extreme version of outcome for the country based on vote of 30‰ of the voting public is not good.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Nope, because a system that enables a wider spectrum of parties to be represented and mean that the government more closely resembles the views of the population who voted would be better.

A general election to pick the most extreme version of outcome for the country based on vote of 30‰ of the voting public is not good.

If there was a second referendum held under a Johnson Administration, and Remain won 52:48, how would you argue if Johnson stated that the result is "advisory" and therefore will not be implemented under his government?

That's the logic of the Remain campaign today. If it's "advisory", it can be swept to one side.

If it works one way, it must also apply to the other.

prawnsambo

My advice would be to revoke it, have no other referendums until they grow up and get themselves a proper constitution, get rid of the monarchy, the lords, the ridiculous honours system and other medieval titles and start behaving like a proper country and not a hangover from the 19th century.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

My advice would be to revoke it, have no other referendums until they grow up and get themselves a proper constitution, get rid of the monarchy, the lords, the ridiculous honours system and other medieval titles and start behaving like a proper country and not a hangover from the 19th century.

You do realise this is in the Brexit Party manifesto (apart from monarchy point)?

suicide_circus

robinph wrote: »

Nope, because a system that enables a wider spectrum of parties to be represented and mean that the government more closely resembles the views of the population who voted would be better.

A general election to pick the most extreme version of outcome for the country based on vote of 30‰ of the voting public is not good.

so if the vote had gone the other way and Remain had won, followed by uproar and endless campaigning by the Leave side to have another vote and parliament frustrated and filibustered at every turn by Brexiteers determined to overturn the referendum, you'd see it as a positive step for democracy in Britain were they successful and changes to electoral rules came in?

robinph

suicide_circus wrote: »

so if the vote had gone the other way and Remain had won, followed by uproar and endless campaigning by the Leave side to have another vote and parliament frustrated and filibustered at every turn by Brexiteers determined to overturn the referendum, you'd see it as a positive step for democracy in Britain were they successful and changes to electoral rules came in?

Yes. If leave had continued to lobby for leaving the EU and came up with a reasonable reason to do so and way of doing so and the public then changed their mind and decided to go along with that then yes, that would be fine and a great example of democracy in action.

As it is we have leave scraping a majority, not having a plan for what to do or any reasons why it should be done. Three + years later they still don't have any reason for having done it and the only reason for doing it now is because people are bored of waiting for it to happen. The majority of people are now (probably) remain, but leavers dare not ask the question, and instead ask a different question that only needs a third of people to vote their way for them to then come out and claim that they won and "everyone" wants brexit to happen.

The only way of finding out if the population wants brexit to still happen is to ask them that question.

suicide_circus

robinph wrote: »

As it is we have leave scraping a majority

Dont go pulling at that thread, democracy is so often based on scraping majorities.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise this is in the Brexit Party manifesto (apart from monarchy point)?

Yeah, they robbed it from me. Don't have the balls to actually do all the necessary though.

robinph

suicide_circus wrote: »

Dont go pulling at that thread, democracy is so often based on scraping majorities.

For the make up of a party in government in power, yes.

For a decision on a fundamental change to a constitution or a direction the country should go in, not always and some changes should rightly only be done with super majorities but otherwise the status quo should stand.

suicide_circus

robinph wrote: »

For the make up of a party in government in power, yes.

For a decision on a fundamental change to a constitution or a direction the country should go in, not always and some changes should rightly only be done with super majorities but otherwise the status quo should stand.

and yet the vote was made on the understanding that no super majority was required. i'm not disagreeing with your theory btw.

robinph

suicide_circus wrote: »

and yet the vote was made on the understanding that no super majority was required. i'm not disagreeing with your theory btw.

...and that it was only advisory remember.

suicide_circus

Anyway, back to the election!

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

If there was a second referendum held under a Johnson Administration, and Remain won 52:48, how would you argue if Johnson stated that the result is "advisory" and therefore will not be implemented under his government?

That's the logic of the Remain campaign today. If it's "advisory", it can be swept to one side.

If it works one way, it must also apply to the other.

That is a rewriting of history. After the result, all the main parties stated, as mentioned often, that they would carry out the result.

And that is what they did by Art 50. So very few were calling for a rerun at the time. The rerun/revoke calls have increased because the true nature of the lies, the fraud during the campaign have come to light.

In addition, despite the continue claims by the Tory government, leaving the was not going to be easy as far from a Brexit dividend would result in payments of £39 and the splitting of NI from the UK.

So revoke and rerun of due to new facts, not simply because Remain lost.

So if a 2nd ref was held and Remain won 52/48 and it was then shown that Remain lied and cheated their way then yes of course it should be held again.

If, Eskimo, Labour break campaign laws over the next 10 days and some how win the election would you simply accept it?

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

If, Eskimo, Labour break campaign laws over the next 10 days and some how win the election would you simply accept it?

Yes - because breaking a law doesn't mean you can suddenly win an election. If Labour did win a majority, it's not down to spending 50,000 pounds more than the Tories. Something else, more fundamental, would have to have taken place.

By all means prosecute those involved, but an election is a complicated process and attributing too much weight to some minor misdemeanour is going over-the-top, in my view.

Furthermore, every election has the major parties lying about what they will/will not do - but we never nullify the General Election results because of those lies, do we?

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes - because breaking a law doesn't mean you can suddenly win an election. If Labour did win a majority, it's not down to spending 50,000 pounds more than the Tories. Something else, more fundamental, would have to have taken place.

By all means prosecute those involved, but an election is a complicated process and attributing too much weight to some minor misdemeanour is going over-the-top, in my view.

Furthermore, every election has the major parties lying about what they will/will not do - but we never nullify the General Election results because of those lies, do we?

They didn't just lie, they broke the law.

So now we know that you don't mind lying, law breaking, but somehow politicians not living up to a point in a manifesto is beyond the pale?

Again, if the result was tight, but a Labour victory and it was shown that Labour had done something illegal in the run up to polling day, do you really expect us to believe that you would simply shrug it off and accept the new socialist agenda and 2nd Ref?

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

They didn't just lie, they broke the law.

So now we know that you don't mind lying, law breaking, but somehow politicians not living up to a point in a manifesto is beyond the pale?

Again, if the result was tight, but a Labour victory and it was shown that Labour had done something illegal in the run up to polling day, do you really expect us to believe that you would simply shrug it off and accept the new socialist agenda and 2nd Ref?

I didn't say I was in favour of lying or law-breaking. I said that the law should take its course, and that the General Election result should also take its course. I don't accept the premise that law breaking and General Election results are intricately intertwined. Prosecute those minor violations, of course, but do not nullify the election result.

Second, to answer your second question, yes, I would accept the result if Comrade Corbyn won the election, even on a tight margin. Another one of the grave implications of what you say, is that it's entirely concievable than one individual could intentionally cause mayhem and illegality within one party - intentionally - in order to have the result nullified in favour of his own party; and nobody could contest that.

It's unlikely, but it's possible.

People say that the Brexit result should be cancelled because the Leave side "told lies". The implication there, to be consistent, is that General Election results must be nullified if the parties tell lies - which they all do. Misleading is misleading is misleading. But anti-Brexit people don't make this argument during GE campaigns.

Why not?

Because it's a manufactured argument because they lost.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

People say that the Brexit result should be cancelled because the Leave side "told lies". The implication there, to be consistent, is that General Election results must be nullified if the parties tell lies - which they all do. Misleading is misleading is misleading. But anti-Brexit people don't make this argument during GE campaigns.

Why not?

Because it's a manufactured argument because they lost.

Stop doing that, that is not the case. They want it cancelled because the leave side broke the law. There is a massive difference.

You continually claim to want to respect democracy, but seem more than happy to see it rules torn apart.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Stop doing that, that is not the case. They want it cancelled because the leave side broke the law. There is a massive difference.

You continually claim to want to respect democracy, but seem more than happy to see it rules torn apart.

That is fine.

Let me mirror back to you the latest YouGov Poll results:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1199810194739466240

People do not want revocation - or "cancelled" in your view.

It's literally an extremist position. Only a minority - 1-in-7 people - hold that view in the UK. Or, put another way, 6-in-7 people in the UK are voting against "cancellation of Brexit".

Whereas 42% of people are voting for the Johnson Deal.

Democracy in action. :cool:

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

That is fine.

Let me mirror back to you the latest YouGov Poll results:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1199810194739466240

People do not want revocation - or "cancelled" in your view.

It's literally an extremist position. Only a minority - 1-in-7 people - hold that view in the UK. Or, put another way, 6-in-7 people in the UK are voting against "cancellation of Brexit".

Whereas 42% of people are voting for the Johnson Deal.

Democracy in action. :cool:

Hang on there cowboy. An estimated 42% people with a certain margin of error are possibly going to vote for the Johnson Deal.

Until the votes are counted you may want to hold off on gloating. You wouldn't want to peak too early and do yourself damage.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hang on there cowboy. An estimated 42% people with a certain margin of error are possibly going to vote for the Johnson Deal.

Until the votes are counted you may want to hold off on gloating. You wouldn't want to peak too early and do yourself damage.

That's absolutely true.

It could be 47% by the time of the election, maybe even 50%.

I may be getting ahead of myself. :pac:

Leroy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is fine.

Let me mirror back to you the latest YouGov Poll results:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1199810194739466240

People do not want revocation - or "cancelled" in your view.

It's literally an extremist position. Only a minority - 1-in-7 people - hold that view in the UK. Or, put another way, 6-in-7 people in the UK are voting against "cancellation of Brexit".

Whereas 42% of people are voting for the Johnson Deal.

Democracy in action. :cool:

Did I say all people, or even a majority? No.

As usual you deflect some the question with some made up issue.

As I said, you clearly have no regard for democracy since lying and law breaking is perfectly acceptable to you.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

That's absolutely true.

It could be 47% by the time of the election, maybe even 50%.

I may be getting ahead of myself. :pac:

Or it could make the Tory voters complacent so they stay home, stir the anti-Boris/Remain Tories into crossing the floor vote wise, convince the Lib-Dem/Green voters to decide the LP is their best bet to stop Brexit, and galvinise the Labour voters.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did I say all people, or even a majority? No.

As usual you deflect some the question with some made up issue.

As I said, you clearly have no regard for democracy since lying and law breaking is perfectly acceptable to you.

It's not my opinion that matters in this election, nor yours.

It's what the British people want.

After the last intense 3 years of debate, and full to the brim with Brexit, they still opt not to vote to cancel Brexit in overwhelming number. As I said, 3 years of intense scrutiny and exposure, and only 1-in-7 British people opt for revocation.

So, clearly then, the British people have seen all the lies and are now more fully informed about Brexit than ever - yet 42% are still willing to opt for the Johnson Deal (and all the "lies" that come with Johnson) and only 1-in-7 opt for cancellation.

Again, my view is the mainstream view. Yours is the minority, extremist view.

On here, I'm in the minority. In the UK, I'm in the majority.

So, whilst the comforts of collective opinion on this thread are sure to nourish your personal convictions, they do not represent public opinion in the UK. Yet again, you are claiming to be "above" the UK public and "know what's best for them". I find that a contemptibly patronising and condescending attitude.

Whereas, with my view, I'm respecting their democratic choice.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not my opinion that matters in this election, nor yours.

It's what the British people want.

After the last intense 3 years of debate, and full to the brim with Brexit, they still opt not to vote to cancel Brexit in overwhelming number. As I said, 3 years of intense scrutiny and exposure, and only 1-in-7 British people opt for revocation.

So, clearly then, the British people have seen all the lies and are now more fully informed about Brexit than ever - yet 42% are still willing to opt for the Johnson Deal (and all the "lies" that come with Johnson) and only 1-in-7 opt for cancellation.

Again, my view is the mainstream view. Yours is the minority, extremist view.

On here, I'm in the minority. In the UK, I'm in the majority.

So, whilst the comforts of collective opinion on this thread are sure to nourish your personal convictions, they do not represent public opinion in the UK. Yet again, you are claiming to be "above" the UK public and "know what's best for them". I find that a contemptibly patronising and condescending attitude.

Whereas, with my view, I'm respecting their democratic choice.

An estimated 1 to 1.5m of Leave voters in June 2016 are already dead - a horrible stat admittedly but an accurate one.

Does anyone really know what 'the British people' want in December 2019?

Leroy42

You do realise 42% is not a majority?

If you want to take this GE as a direction in Brexit, despite it being a GE and thus having plenty of other factors, then Johnson getting less than 50% means Brexit should be stopped doesn't it. Or at the very least Johnson version of it.

Democracy in action

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me mirror back to you the latest YouGov Poll results:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1199810194739466240

People do not want revocation - or "cancelled" in your view.

...

Whereas 42% of people are voting for the Johnson Deal.

That's a typical Leaver's approach to poll results. Where in those poll results does the word "Brexit" appear? It doesn't - these are the stated voting intentions in a general election - the choice of the people to run the country for the next five years. Anyone who treats it as a proxy referendum on Brexit is myopic in the extreme.

But hey, who cares. The guy promising to "get Brexit done" is the same one who pulled the Withdrawal Agreement from parliament after it was moved closer to ratification, having previously voted against the almost identical one proposed by his predecessor. Anyone voting for Johnson ought to know that he has a good track record at opposing Brexit and the efforts to achieve it, so shouldn't be too surprised if Brexit doesn't "get done" as promised.

sid waddell

Who needs Fox News when you have the likes of Morgan and Kuennsberg. The British media is not fit for purpose, it's a propaganda machine that only cares about clicks, ratings and biased sensationalism.

https://twitter.com/ehsanashraf/status/1199960935194136577

prawnsambo

CelticRambler wrote: »

That's a typical Leaver's approach to poll results. Where in those poll results does the word "Brexit" appear? It doesn't - these are the stated voting intentions in a general election - the choice of the people to run the country for the next five years. Anyone who treats it as a proxy referendum on Brexit is myopic in the extreme.

But hey, who cares. The guy promising to "get Brexit done" is the same one who pulled the Withdrawal Agreement from parliament after it was moved closer to ratification, having previously voted against the almost identical one proposed by his predecessor. Anyone voting for Johnson ought to know that he has a good track record at opposing Brexit and the efforts to achieve it, so shouldn't be too surprised if Brexit doesn't "get done" as promised.

The actual poll results, if read at the basic brexit level, puts leave on 46% and remain on 53%.

Joe_ Public

sid waddell wrote: »

Who needs Fox News when you have the likes of Morgan and Kuennsberg. The British media is not fit for purpose, it's a propaganda machine that only cares about clicks, ratings and biased sensationalism.

https://twitter.com/ehsanashraf/status/1199960935194136577

Apart from anything else, she seems to have a terribly poor sense of judgement, i mean for somebody who has reached such a senior position in her profession. Tweeting up about Cummings' blog yesterday just came across as pure publicity for cummings with its reference to "the likes of goldman sachs" writing cheques for the remain side would clearly elicit proper condemnation if came from rival circles. Why would you want to be associated with the likes of that?

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

The actual poll results, if read at the basic brexit level, puts leave on 46% and remain on 53%.

I despise that type of "reasoning".

A second referendum is not on the cards. It's not happening.

Remainers like to focus on the outcome of results from a second referendum. However, they conveniently fail to tell you that very few people want a second referendum in the first place.

So, results of something nobody is asking for cannot be used as the basis of an argument. It is an absurd, twisted form of reasoning. It means that, if you respect any polls at all, you should also respect the polls which say few people want a re-run.

This, from Professor John Curtice, psephologist supremo:

But the idea of a so-called “People’s Vote” has also become a major talking point thanks to a skillfully conducted campaign that has been intent on creating the impression that there is popular support for such a ballot by commissioning polling that appears to show that is the case.

However, this impression is misleading. True, many a poll does suggest that more are in favour of another ballot than are against. However, there are also plenty of polls that show the very opposite. Meanwhile, all polls show that the support for holding a second referendum is largely confined to those in favour of remaining in the EU.

But when Leave supporters are asked whether there should be another referendum on the principle of Brexit, only one in eight are in favour.

In contrast around two-thirds of Remain voters want a second referendum, irrespective of how the question is asked. Thus, either way, the popularity of the proposal is is clearly largely confined to those who wish to reverse Brexit.