Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)
Comments
-
Interesting you call Brexit a "revolution" - from listening to right-wing rhetoric over the years I always thought it was the left who apparently wanted revolution!Deleted User wrote: »Only a total and complete idiot would deny the fact that Johnson is a total and complete elitist.
And as an elitist, he can be expected to articulate the type of comment that you've raised.
I think most voters know this, though. They know, like I and others, that you cannot necessarily control who is going to be the "Prime Minister of Brexit".
In this case, it happens to be Johnson. So for all faults, of which there are many, the fact that he's leading the Brexit revolution is sufficient enough for the electorate to vote for the Conservatives in overwhelming number.
Revolutions rarely work out well, and this revolution launched by the elite corporate class definitely won't, well it might for the elite corporate class itself, but not for the ordinary people.0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »So does being an elitist justify the kind of insulting, misogynistic, racist comments he has been regularly trotting out all his working life? I mean, I've heard the "satire" defence being wheeled out when required, but that would be a new one to add to it.
It depends.
I've used racist, homophobic, Islamophobic language throughout my life -- however, I've only ever used it as part of humour - never as a justification of hatred. For example - mocking a foreign accent, making some insensitive gay jokes (I'm gay myself), and the plethora of Islam-related jokes we can put together.
Johnson has, in my view, only weaved words together for the purposes of his career self-advancement as well as for humorous purposes - not because he literally hates every minority under the widest sun.
We have to move beyond this silly form of politics where a comment here or there, which if said in private between a group of friends would attract a laugh, suddenly means a public figure must retire forever.
It's absurd.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
One of the things that makes this thread interesting, and a better actual discussion maybe than a similiar UK forum is that few of us posting here have a vote in this election.
...
It would drive me nuts, and thinking about this from the perspective of a UK voter in this election I have massive sympathy for them, because no matter what the result it will be undermined by those who have no idea of the democratic value of losers consent.
We have seen losers consent abandoned in the US as well with Trump's election, and if the pattern continues the long term damage will be far greater than whatever Trump/Brexit/Johnson inflicts.
It's strange, I've only ever heard the phrase "losers consent" since 2016, and I like to think that I'm reasonably clued in politically. It certainly sounds like a real thing, as in a high minded principle of democracy, or an academic analysis of how people react when the vote doesn't go their way. And it is discussed as though we are all aware of it and all agree with it as a doctrine (or at least everyone did agree with it, until Trump/Brexit). But the only references I can find to it prior to Brexit/Trump appear to relate to a relatively obscure text by Christopher J. Anderson, André Blais, Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Ola Listhaug.
However, the way they describe losers consent is about how, having lost, the losing side accept that they lost. It isn't a theory that suggests that the supporters of party or position A must, having lost to party or position B, become supporters of party or position B. Nor is it that they must always accept that the outcome was valid - indeed, most democracies have a procedure for challenging the outcomes of elections where there has been an error of some kind. It is simply a theory that suggests that it is important that the unsuccessful side continues to accept the institutions of democracy and don't turn to apathy etc.
In the U.K., the remain side have not rejected the institutions of democracy such as voting and parliament. In fact, overall they are greater supporters of same, utterly condemning Boris Johnson for trying to circumvent parliamentary procedure.
It is true that the remain side have continued to advocate for remain and haven't said "ok, I guess we'd better get behind brexit". But I can't think of any concept of democracy that requires them to do so. They must respect what the majority have said and they have done, by e.g. voting to trigger article 50 etc. But there is no doctrine of "losers consent" that requires remain voters to now support brexit.
Similarly, pointing out that there were irregularities in the election campaigns is not a breach of a concept of "losers consent". It is, by contrast, the actions of people who still very much believe in the system, and in so doing want to maintain the integrity of the system.
Finally, insofar as remainers want another referendum, that is the opposite of losers consent. It shows that they still believe in the importance of referenda and voting, and they haven't become apathetic. In truth, so much stuff has happened since the Brexit vote, that it would be almost impossible to deny that there is a case to make that circumstances have changed.
So, coming back to your analogy about voting for FG, the "losers" in that election have, far from getting behind FG, have attempted to undermine them at every hare's turn. Just this week they have had a vote of no confidence in one of their ministers. That is democracy in action, and the "losers" are consenting insofar as they are fulfilling their role as opposition parliamentarians.
Further, would it be losers consent to say that because FG won the last election, that there is no scope for people to want a change of direction? If it turned out, extending your analogy, that FG won after breaching electoral rules and that, in the 3 years since they took over, we have found out a lot more about them and realise they were a bad idea, are we not entitled to change our views?
I would point out as well that logically, if remainers are not allowed to voice criticism of leaving, then one could go back further and say that the leave parties should not have been allowed to criticise the EU prior to that point, as the leavers were the "losers" prior to the Brexit vote.
Ultimately, the position is this:
1. People are free to believe what they want in a democracy;
2. The problem of not having losers consent is if they lose faith in democracy and take matters into their own hands;
3. The losing side doesn't have to be submissive or agree with the outcome;
4. Everyone is entitled to challenge a vote where there has been irregularities or misconduct;
5. People can always change their minds and seek to revisit an issue; and
6. While a great leader can, after a divisive election, rally the losing side behind him/her, if the leader chooses instead to continue to stoke the divisions and insist on demonising the other side, then obviously the "losers" aren't going to get behind him/her.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »It depends.
I've used racist, homophobic, Islamophobic language throughout my life -- however, I've only ever used it as part of humour - never as a justification of hatred. For example - mocking a foreign accent, making some insensitive gay jokes (I'm gay myself), and the plethora of Islam-related jokes we can put together.
Johnson has, in my view, only weaved words together for the purposes of his career self-advancement as well as for humorous purposes - not because he literally hates every minority under the widest sun.
We have to move beyond this silly form of politics where a comment here or there, which if said in private between a group of friends would attract a laugh, suddenly means a public figure must retire forever.
It's absurd.
Right, i dont want to be seen as po-faced or snowflake or whatever the correct term is, but you are aware this silly form of politics is where there was an estimated 375% rise in attacks on Muslims the week after johnson made his burqa comments. Absurd i know, but there you go.
But given his disgraceful recklessness in the safety of the british woman in prison in iran, its hard to know whether the prime minister would be really bothered by that.0 -
One of the things that makes this thread interesting, and a better actual discussion maybe than a similiar UK forum is that few of us posting here have a vote in this election.
In looking a the election and commenting here, I try and put myself shoes of a UK voter, when assessing the leaders, policies etc how would I vote if I had a vote. (I have lived in the UK but never voted there). And when someone on here disagrees with that opinion, sure so what, differences of opinion are healthy and hell, what do I care anyway, I have no skin in the game.
Prompted by someones post above comparing Martin and Varadkar to Corbyn and Johnson I started thinking about the discussion here in relation to our politicians, and our own forthcoming election.
In that election, as things stand currently, I will probably vote FG for various reasons that are off topic here.
My relevant point to this thread is that if I voted FG and they won the election, I would be beyond furious if there was an attempt to undermine that election result because people who voted for other parties claimed the reason I voted FG was because I was too thick to understand the issues or brainwashed by the media, the Russians, fake news or whatever excuse you're having this week.
It would drive me nuts, and thinking about this from the perspective of a UK voter in this election I have massive sympathy for them, because no matter what the result it will be undermined by those who have no idea of the democratic value of losers consent.
We have seen losers consent abandoned in the US as well with Trump's election, and if the pattern continues the long term damage will be far greater than whatever Trump/Brexit/Johnson inflicts.
I don't think an Irish GE is a good comparison though.
I think Brexit would be more akin to holding a referendum on something very controversial like legalising the death penalty, banning the wearing of the burqa or halting immigration from certain countries, the campaign being rushed and poorly debated and it being narrowly passed.0 -
Advertisement
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Similarly, pointing out that there were irregularities in the election campaigns is not a breach of a concept of "losers consent". It is, by contrast, the actions of people who still very much believe in the system, and in so doing want to maintain the integrity of the system.
If there were no "irregularities", do you sincerely believe the Remain campaign would have endorsed Brexit?0 -
"The vitriol for JC now v strong from working class voters, mainly fuelled by Facebook ads. Repeated mentions of links to the IRA/terrorism, which have been circulated online"
Facebook have a hell of a lot to answer for.
An absolute scourge of untruths and fakery for profit.
It makes me sick.
i kinda predicted this would happen but i was dismissed by people here. unfortunately for Lab there is a heck of a lot of muck to be thrown at Corbyn, and it was naive to think in this inter-web age of anti-social media-muck it would not be used. Trump used it extensively to get elected, but so did Obama.
as for FB it is a scourge imo. many years ago i had an account for 3 days but could never feel comfortable with it. an ex manager of FB recently said that FB has managed to connect a third of the world's pop and simultaneously alienate them from one another. FB is bad for vour mental wellbeing imo.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
Deleted User wrote: »If there were no "irregularities", do you sincerely believe the Remain campaign would have endorsed Brexit?
No. But that's precisely my point. They don't have to endorse Brexit and are entitled to point out the irregularities. There is no doctrine of "losers consent" that requires them to either endorse Brexit nor to ignore the irregularities, and I find it strange that we are now being told that this is some kind of hallowed part of our democracy that is being violated by those anti-democratic remainers!
Coming back to the election at hand, there absolutely cannot be any suggestion that because of the vote in 2016, that the British people must vote in a party in favour of Brexit. They can choose to do so, and it certainly seems like they are likely to do so, but they are not obliged to do so.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 5904
Deleted User wrote: »It's ludicrous that you think Cambridge Analytica made no difference to either Trump or Brexit.
If people aren't so easily manipulated, why did the Trump campaign and the Leave group spend so much money on targetted campaigning?
Do you think Cambridge Anaytica’s influence in the US collection was a bigger factor to the outcome than the values/history/characters of the candidates?0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Isn't that precisely the point?
You are immune, whereas the "stupid people', are vulnerable.
Therefore, you and your equivalent get to argue that a second vote should be held. You and they are our masters - and therefore get to determine the future.
It's not one-man-one-woman-one-vote.
It's one-intelligent-person : half-a-vote-to-a-less-intelligent-person
Aren't you setting a dangerous precedent? At what point is an electorate "sufficiently intelligent" to "make the right decision"?
If that's the criterion, then the result all votes would be known in advance (because everyone would be making the "right decision").
It's an affront to the democratic principle - pure and simple.
I'm immune because I didn't subject myself to being someone's, "prey". Cambridge analytical are a scourge. I notice you didn't answer my question btw.
If people aren't so easily manipulated, why did the Trump campaign and the Leave group spend so much money on targetted campaigning?
There's no "masters" here. There's people who believe that now we actually know what the deal is, that it should be put back to the people. A point even Jacob Rees Mogg backed at the start!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Coming back to the election at hand, there absolutely cannot be any suggestion that because of the vote in 2016, that the British people must vote in a party in favour of Brexit. They can choose to do so, and it certainly seems like they are likely to do so, but they are not obliged to do so.
Of course, I agree.
It would be improper for Brexit supporters to demand that the Remain campaign back their political course of action.
But with Johnson at 45% in many polls, it seems the electorate has made up their mind.
The question is - will Remainers accept defeat a third time?0 -
Is anyone hoping that Labour can turn this around?
Most people seem to think this is a foregone conclusion. An easy Tory victory and majority.0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »Yes, 98.5% of the contributors to this thread.
A lot of people in Ireland don't like Corbyn or are indifferent to him. I have had many real life conversations with people who describe him as 'useless', 'a disaster' etc.0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »There's a huge gap between hope and believe.
Of course I hope Labour win, but I believe they don't stand a chance, and I'm not setting myself up for further disappointment when the polls come in!
Why aren't you more optimistic though?
Labour were trailing Conservative in the 2017 election, yet managed to come to 2.5% of the latter on election date.
Why do you believe, so desperately, that Conservatives have it in the bag?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
Is anyone hoping that Labour can turn this around?
Most people seem to think this is a foregone conclusion. An easy Tory victory and majority.
I would hope that the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP as the only remain parties, win the election. However, if that is not going to happen, then id rather the swift death of the Tory deal.
Why anyone in Ireland would want Brexit to keep going on in vague uncertainty, and maybe wish that Corbyn would try to change the WA to their benefit and possibly to our disadvantage, is utterly beyond me.A lot of people in Ireland don't like Corbyn or are indifferent to him. I have had many real life conversations with people who describe him as 'useless', 'a disaster' etc.
On Brexit, the most divisive and important issue, Corbyn has failed to show leadership and has rather creavenly tried to please everyone. In so doing, he is pleasing no one . Thus, insofar as Irish people would like to see some kind of opposition to Brexit and someone trying to lead the UK back to remain, calling Corbyn useless and a disaster has been, from an Irish point of view, completely accurate0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
Deleted User wrote: »Of course, I agree.
It would be improper for Brexit supporters to demand that the Remain campaign back their political course of action.
But with Johnson at 45% in many polls, it seems the electorate has made up their mind.
It seems so alright.The question is - will Remainers accept defeat a third time?
Well 2017 was more a score draw but my points above would still stand. They are entitled to question any irregularities (more convincingly, this time, as it was a binding vote) and they dont have to change their views and like Brexit. But they should accept that the parliament as elected can vote and legislate to bring about Brexit in accordance with their mandate0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »
On Brexit, the most divisive and important issue, Corbyn has failed to show leadership and has rather creavenly tried to please everyone. In so doing, he is pleasing no one . Thus, insofar as Irish people would like to see some kind of opposition to Brexit and someone trying to lead the UK back to remain, calling Corbyn useless and a disaster has been, from an Irish point of view, completely accurate
If he loses this election and Johnson remains in power, it will be 100% down to his Brexit strategy. 'Respecting the result of the referendum', a referendum which was held by the Tories and in which Labour campaigned to Remain was a ludicrous position for the main opposition party.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 5904
johnnyskeleton wrote: »It's strange, I've only ever heard the phrase "losers consent" since 2016, and I like to think that I'm reasonably clued in politically. It certainly sounds like a real thing, as in a high minded principle of democracy, or an academic analysis of how people react when the vote doesn't go their way. And it is discussed as though we are all aware of it and all agree with it as a doctrine (or at least everyone did agree with it, until Trump/Brexit). But the only references I can find to it prior to Brexit/Trump appear to relate to a relatively obscure text by Christopher J. Anderson, André Blais, Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Ola Listhaug.
However, the way they describe losers consent is about how, having lost, the losing side accept that they lost. It isn't a theory that suggests that the supporters of party or position A must, having lost to party or position B, become supporters of party or position B. Nor is it that they must always accept that the outcome was valid - indeed, most democracies have a procedure for challenging the outcomes of elections where there has been an error of some kind. It is simply a theory that suggests that it is important that the unsuccessful side continues to accept the institutions of democracy and don't turn to apathy etc.
In the U.K., the remain side have not rejected the institutions of democracy such as voting and parliament. In fact, overall they are greater supporters of same, utterly condemning Boris Johnson for trying to circumvent parliamentary procedure.
It is true that the remain side have continued to advocate for remain and haven't said "ok, I guess we'd better get behind brexit". But I can't think of any concept of democracy that requires them to do so. They must respect what the majority have said and they have done, by e.g. voting to trigger article 50 etc. But there is no doctrine of "losers consent" that requires remain voters to now support brexit.
Similarly, pointing out that there were irregularities in the election campaigns is not a breach of a concept of "losers consent". It is, by contrast, the actions of people who still very much believe in the system, and in so doing want to maintain the integrity of the system.
Finally, insofar as remainers want another referendum, that is the opposite of losers consent. It shows that they still believe in the importance of referenda and voting, and they haven't become apathetic. In truth, so much stuff has happened since the Brexit vote, that it would be almost impossible to deny that there is a case to make that circumstances have changed.
So, coming back to your analogy about voting for FG, the "losers" in that election have, far from getting behind FG, have attempted to undermine them at every hare's turn. Just this week they have had a vote of no confidence in one of their ministers. That is democracy in action, and the "losers" are consenting insofar as they are fulfilling their role as opposition parliamentarians.
Further, would it be losers consent to say that because FG won the last election, that there is no scope for people to want a change of direction? If it turned out, extending your analogy, that FG won after breaching electoral rules and that, in the 3 years since they took over, we have found out a lot more about them and realise they were a bad idea, are we not entitled to change our views?
I would point out as well that logically, if remainers are not allowed to voice criticism of leaving, then one could go back further and say that the leave parties should not have been allowed to criticise the EU prior to that point, as the leavers were the "losers" prior to the Brexit vote.
Ultimately, the position is this:
1. People are free to believe what they want in a democracy;
2. The problem of not having losers consent is if they lose faith in democracy and take matters into their own hands;
3. The losing side doesn't have to be submissive or agree with the outcome;
4. Everyone is entitled to challenge a vote where there has been irregularities or misconduct;
5. People can always change their minds and seek to revisit an issue; and
6. While a great leader can, after a divisive election, rally the losing side behind him/her, if the leader chooses instead to continue to stoke the divisions and insist on demonising the other side, then obviously the "losers" aren't going to get behind him/her.
I agree with you that it has only really been a discussed thing recently but that is because the attempted undermining of election results due to claims of fake news and Russians etc seems also to be a fairly recent thing.
In the past it was not a big deal because losing parties and supporters said hey why did we lose this election? then they studied their policies, choice of candidates etc to try and find out where they went wrong and why their offering did not garner sufficient support with the electorate. I.e they accepted they lost because the electorate is always right.
They did not say, hang on the electorate is not actually right, they’re wrong about our candidate and our policies, we don’t need to fix anything except tell the majority of the electorate that they are too thick/brainwashed/indoctrinated to realize What is good for them and the clever minority in fact voted correctly.
Take the US Trump election as an example. Clinton lost that election because she was a woefully bad choice of candidate, so bad she could not beat an narcissistic joke of a reality tv candidate caught on tape bragging about being so famous he could grab women’s pussies.
But have the Dems really acknowledged that screwed up in that election? No they blame fake news, Russians and the hicks, or the “deplorables” to use Clinton’s phrase.
Re Brexit I am not saying remainders cannot criticize the idea of leaving the EU or that they should not be allowed to campaign for a second referendum.
I am saying their chances of overturning Brexit would have been far greater by trying to understand the reasons why more people voted to leave than remain, than mocking their IQ and blaming the Russians.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »...they should accept that the parliament as elected can vote and legislate to bring about Brexit in accordance with their mandate
Yeah, it's crazy:
"A third of 2017 Conservative voters also voted remain"
Source: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/15/tory-remainers-labour-leavers-election-voters-lib-dems
How do you square that circle if you're a Tory voter that wants to remain? I note that also 3 put 10 labour voters voted for leave, but with the party offering a second vote and not taking a position, that is somewhat more appetising than what Tory remain voters face.0 -
I agree with you that it has only really been a discussed thing recently but that is because the attempted undermining of election results due to claims of fake news and Russians etc seems also to be a fairly recent thing.
In the past it was not a big deal because losing parties and supporters said hey why did we lose this election? then they studied their policies, choice of candidates etc to try and find out where they went wrong and why their offering did not garner sufficient support with the electorate. I.e they accepted they lost because the electorate is always right.
They did not say, hang on the electorate is not actually right, they’re wrong about our candidate and our policies, we don’t need to fix anything except tell the majority of the electorate that they are too thick/brainwashed/indoctrinated to realize What is good for them and the clever minority in fact voted correctly.
Take the US Trump election as an example. Clinton lost that election because she was a woefully bad choice of candidate, so bad she could not beat an narcissistic joke of a reality tv candidate caught on tape bragging about being so famous he could grab women’s pussies.
But have the Dems really acknowledged that screwed up in that election? No they blame fake news, Russians and the hicks, or the “deplorables” to use Clinton’s phrase.
Re Brexit I am not saying remainders cannot criticize the idea of leaving the EU or that they should not be allowed to campaign for a second referendum.
I am saying their chances of overturning Brexit would have been far greater by trying to understand the reasons why more people voted to leave than remain, than mocking their IQ and blaming the Russians.
So aggressive targeted marketing had nothing to do with either Trump or Brexit?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 5904
Deleted User wrote: »Yes. 100%.
Gosh. I 100% believe the Dems lost that election as soon as they selected Clinton as candidate, so Cambridge Analytica actually had little influence.
Given our respective % certainties on our positions I think it unlikely we will meet somewhere in the middle!0 -
Join Date:Posts: 5904
Deleted User wrote: »So aggressive targeted marketing had nothing to do with either Trump or Brexit?
Aggressive targeted marketing has influenced every campaign in history. And all sides engage in it0 -
I was just thinking back to Piggate.
How Cameron was accused of a pretty heinous act, and I looked up the genesis of that story.
An anonymous MP and "distinguished Oxford contemporary" of Cameron told the anecdote "out of the blue" at a business dinner in June 2014 and again some weeks later, and for a third time with more detail some months after that.
Who does that sound like? Who's well known for throwing stories "out of the blue" at after dinner speeches, and also well known for telling the same take more than once at after dinner events?
Quite amazing how that MP has remained anonymous...0 -
Tory win next week.
Brexit in Jan 2020
Trade deal... who knows but at least we in Ireland can get on with it.
Bigger questions about the Union will come to the fore no doubt.
Lib Dems have been bad but in a FTTP system, its very hard for a 3rd party to make gains and Johnson made the right call. Make this a Brexit General Election which seems to resonate. He is an absolute spoofer but people just want Brexit done and let the cards fall where they are.
Corbyn has been useless and surely he will have to step down.
I wonder who will take over? Will they stay with the hard left momentum faction or return to the center a bit more.
Its clear though, there is no big appetite for hard-left 1970's style socialism in the UK.
How can they let the Tories win yet another GE with all that has gone on the past few years, is beyond me.
The history books will rightly call this opposition as the worst we have ever seen in the UK.
All in all, a bit depressing.
We will have our own GE to contend with in the Spring, that will be fun... not!0 -
Aggressive targeted marketing has influenced every campaign in history. And all sides engage in it.
Never to the same extent, and you can't argue otherwise. Posters, flyers through the door and advertisements in newspapers are nowhere near the same as the targeted ads that went on in Facebook during that election/referenda.0 -
If he loses this election and Johnson remains in power, it will be 100% down to his Brexit strategy. 'Respecting the result of the referendum', a referendum which was held by the Tories and in which Labour campaigned to Remain was a ludicrous position for the main opposition party.
What do you think would have happened if corbyn had decided not to respect the result of the referendum? Would it have succeeded in stopping brexit in its tracks or merely handed theresa may the handiest election campaign attack line possible?
Likliest outcome imo is they'd have left last march as per deadline which might have been for the best on many levels.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 5904
Deleted User wrote: »Never to the same extent, and you can't argue otherwise. Posters, flyers through the door and advertisements in newspapers are nowhere near the same as the targeted ads that went on in Facebook during that election/referenda.
Saying that one side won an election because their marketing strategy was more effective is a little like saying they won because they ran a better campaign.
Which is kind of the point.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement