|
Post by Andrew_S on Jul 14, 2018 22:01:09 GMT
"David Wooding Verified account @davidwooding 38m38 minutes ago
Labour surges into a five-point lead over Tories, in a @deltapolluk poll for The Sun on Sunday tomorrow."
Don't know who Delta are, maybe they're a new polling company.
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,376
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 14, 2018 22:21:47 GMT
My error. I thought this was a democracy. It is a democracy, just not a direct democracy. Ah! Of course. Not a democracy at all but an elective oligarchy with elections not very often. You get to choose the people who choose an elite who form the policy in a virtual vacuum of their own devising with as little input by the great unwashed as it is possible to manage and with more and more decided off-shore by un-elected ministers and bureaucrats beholden to no one. Magic. And people don't vote as much as they used to! Why can that be? It is NOT a democracy at all and we all know it.
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolliberal on Jul 14, 2018 22:22:14 GMT
And on the specific issue of Brexit, the only thing the referendum result tells us is that the public are split down the middle (with slightly more on one side than the other) 2 years ago had slightly more on one side than the other. I have become incredibly weary of people using the "will of the people" argument, because i'm sure that said will has changed, and nobody really knows in which way
|
|
|
Post by ccoleman on Jul 14, 2018 22:26:27 GMT
It is a democracy, just not a direct democracy. Ah! Of course. Not a democracy at all but an elective oligarchy with elections not very often. You get to choose the people who choose an elite who form the policy in a virtual vacuum of their own devising with as little input by the great unwashed as it is possible to manage and with more and more decided off-shore by un-elected ministers and bureaucrats beholden to no one. Magic. And people don't vote as much as they used to! Why can that be? It is NOT a democracy at all and we all know it. If that is your preferred name for parliamentary democracies then fair enough. I'd probably suggest moving to Switzerland if you want the public to have greater control over policy.
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,376
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 14, 2018 22:33:24 GMT
Ah! Of course. Not a democracy at all but an elective oligarchy with elections not very often. You get to choose the people who choose an elite who form the policy in a virtual vacuum of their own devising with as little input by the great unwashed as it is possible to manage and with more and more decided off-shore by un-elected ministers and bureaucrats beholden to no one. Magic. And people don't vote as much as they used to! Why can that be? It is NOT a democracy at all and we all know it. If that is your preferred name for parliamentary democracies then fair enough. I'd probably suggest moving to Switzerland if you want the public to have greater control over policy. Rubbish. We just change things here with much more direct input by the public. The public always know best even when you think they are wrong. Every citizen an equal legislator and down with the representative element that leaves elites in charge. Populism is the way forward and often stuffs the progressives who are nearly always in a small minority.
|
|
|
Post by ccoleman on Jul 14, 2018 22:36:17 GMT
If that is your preferred name for parliamentary democracies then fair enough. I'd probably suggest moving to Switzerland if you want the public to have greater control over policy. Rubbish. We just change things here with much more direct input by the public. The public always know best even when you think they are wrong. Every citizen an equal legislator and down with the representative element that leaves elites in charge. Populism is the way forward and often stuffs the progressives who are nearly always in a small minority. No thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 22:38:06 GMT
I'm feeling more and more nostalgic for the time when anti-EU campaigners used to bang on about 'parliamentary sovereignty'.
|
|
|
Post by ccoleman on Jul 14, 2018 22:48:08 GMT
I'm feeling more and more nostalgic for the time when anti-EU campaigners used to bang on about 'parliamentary sovereignty'. When it becomes convenient to do so again, they will. Give it time.
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,376
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 14, 2018 22:56:45 GMT
Rubbish. We just change things here with much more direct input by the public. The public always know best even when you think they are wrong. Every citizen an equal legislator and down with the representative element that leaves elites in charge. Populism is the way forward and often stuffs the progressives who are nearly always in a small minority. No thank you. Not your call. We are the masters now!
|
|
|
Post by ccoleman on Jul 14, 2018 22:59:17 GMT
Not your call. We are the masters now! Yes, of course. Whatever makes one happy.
|
|
|
Post by ccoleman on Jul 14, 2018 23:19:34 GMT
Off topic is the best topic to be on topic about. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 8,066
Member is Online
|
Post by cogload on Jul 15, 2018 0:52:52 GMT
Absolutely beautiful poll. My question to SNP/LibDem members: if the opportunity arose, would you be happy to see your party support a Labour government in exchange for a people's vote on Brexit? And do you think your parties would actually do it?
Unless the Tory party is totally dumb I expect that by the time a "people's poll" is on the table the entire question will be moot.
So no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2018 4:42:15 GMT
"David Wooding Verified account @davidwooding 38m38 minutes ago
Labour surges into a five-point lead over Tories, in a @deltapolluk poll for The Sun on Sunday tomorrow."Don't know who Delta are, maybe they're a new polling company. founded this year by Martin Boon and Joe Tyman
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 15, 2018 7:07:53 GMT
Ah! Of course. Not a democracy at all but an elective oligarchy with elections not very often. You get to choose the people who choose an elite who form the policy in a virtual vacuum of their own devising with as little input by the great unwashed as it is possible to manage and with more and more decided off-shore by un-elected ministers and bureaucrats beholden to no one. Magic. And people don't vote as much as they used to! Why can that be? It is NOT a democracy at all and we all know it. If that is your preferred name for parliamentary democracies then fair enough. I'd probably suggest moving to Switzerland if you want the public to have greater control over policy. Moving to Switzerland is of course often a euphemism for something else.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 15, 2018 7:21:50 GMT
This whole question of representative democracy versus direct democracy has been around a long time but the Brexit issue brings it into sharper focus than ever before. If you go for direct democracy you either take a snapshot at a particular day and stick by that for ever, which is how Brexiters view the "will of the people" on Referendum Day, or you accept that the will of the people changes and you go for repeated referendums which on Brexit might well mean we would be voting in one day and out the next which leads to utter chaos. The only alternative to either of these is a representative democracy where you vote in people you trust to make the right informed decisions for you and if they don't you vote them out and vote in another lot to make informed choices on your behalf. This is a flawed system, yes, but not as flawed as the other two.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jul 15, 2018 7:47:24 GMT
This whole question of representative democracy versus direct democracy has been around a long time but the Brexit issue brings it into sharper focus than ever before. If you go for direct democracy you either take a snapshot at a particular day and stick by that for ever, which is how Brexiters view the "will of the people" on Referendum Day, or you accept that the will of the people changes and you go for repeated referendums which on Brexit might well mean we would be voting in one day and out the next which leads to utter chaos. The only alternative to either of these is a representative democracy where you vote in people you trust to make the right informed decisions for you and if they don't you vote them out and vote in another lot to make informed choices on your behalf. This is a flawed system, yes, but not as flawed as the other two. There is a modified approach to Referenda, which is to allow a simple majority decision on discrete issues (which the Swiss do all the time, e.g. on the St Gothard road tunnel without causing chaos) - but to insist that major constitutional change should require a two-thirds (or whatever) majority. Plenty of constitutions have the latter provision applied to the representative chamber let alone a referendum - it's a sound conservative principle. Norn Iron had 30 years of Troubles because 30-40% of the population had no loyalty to the UK; but Indyref held out the possibility of creating an independent Scotland in which 49% of the population didn't want independence and thus up to 49% would have had loyalty to another nation state. Allowing a simple majority was crazy and we were lucky to get away with it; a 51% "Yes" vote would have made Brexit look like a tea party and about the worst possible outcome for the SNP.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jul 15, 2018 8:02:45 GMT
On direct democracy, I think we may need more of it despite the Brexit experience. Populism thrives on the notion that "everyone" thinks X; this needs to be tested more often to either bin some propositions or to take due account of the majority, however unpalatable it might be to liberals. As ArmchairCritic has said, Brexit might not have happened if we'd had as many referendums as the Irish from Maastricht on - the EU, esp. the Commission, might have been given some headaches but it'd have done them good in the long term. But it needs a framework. Brexit is the textbook "how not to" - an "advisory" referendum that isn't advisory, a simple majority which could be reversed by demography within two years allegedly binding us for decades to come, no clear proposition for the winning option etc. The bind we're in now is due to the Parliamentary arithmetic resulting from the '17 GE which in turn is down to the lack of any clear public majority for any one approach to Europe. The one thing a referendum is supposed to do is establish an agreed national position and this one just bloody hasn't, it's established that there is no position - hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Remain - with a consensus. Cameron screwed all of us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Opinium
Jul 15, 2018 8:16:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2018 8:16:59 GMT
On direct democracy, I think we may need more of it despite the Brexit experience. Populism thrives on the notion that "everyone" thinks X; this needs to be tested more often to either bin some propositions or to take due account of the majority, however unpalatable it might be to liberals. As ArmchairCritic has said, Brexit might not have happened if we'd had as many referendums as the Irish from Maastricht on - the EU, esp. the Commission, might have been given some headaches but it'd have done them good in the long term. But it needs a framework. Brexit is the textbook "how not to" - an "advisory" referendum that isn't advisory, a simple majority which could be reversed by demography within two years allegedly binding us for decades to come, no clear proposition for the winning option etc. The bind we're in now is due to the Parliamentary arithmetic resulting from the '17 GE which in turn is down to the lack of any clear public majority for any one approach to Europe. The one thing a referendum is supposed to do is establish an agreed national position and this one just bloody hasn't, it's established that there is no position - hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Remain - with a consensus. Cameron screwed all of us. Brexit experience unfortunately has really put me off. It seems to me most the time people can be quite orderly about these things but this has just bee awful
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 15, 2018 8:26:20 GMT
On direct democracy, I think we may need more of it despite the Brexit experience. Populism thrives on the notion that "everyone" thinks X; this needs to be tested more often to either bin some propositions or to take due account of the majority, however unpalatable it might be to liberals. As ArmchairCritic has said, Brexit might not have happened if we'd had as many referendums as the Irish from Maastricht on - the EU, esp. the Commission, might have been given some headaches but it'd have done them good in the long term. But it needs a framework. Brexit is the textbook "how not to" - an "advisory" referendum that isn't advisory, a simple majority which could be reversed by demography within two years allegedly binding us for decades to come, no clear proposition for the winning option etc. The bind we're in now is due to the Parliamentary arithmetic resulting from the '17 GE which in turn is down to the lack of any clear public majority for any one approach to Europe. The one thing a referendum is supposed to do is establish an agreed national position and this one just bloody hasn't, it's established that there is no position - hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Remain - with a consensus. Cameron screwed all of us.Of course he did, and now May is trying to screw us in turn. -just she's not as good at it as Cameron was. I my earlier post I indicated that our representative democracy was flawed, but better than the two forms of direct democracy I characterised there. I accept the points made by you and by @wattyler81 that there are better systems out there, whether by making the parliamentary democracy more representative through a proportional system, or by requiring a higher percentage vote for constitutional change, or by establishing a Swiss-style culture of deciding lesser issue by use of referendums before handing the big constitutional issues over to the People. Long term, these are all potential solutions, but none of them sort out the mess we are in at this moment.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 15, 2018 8:43:50 GMT
On direct democracy, I think we may need more of it despite the Brexit experience. Populism thrives on the notion that "everyone" thinks X; this needs to be tested more often to either bin some propositions or to take due account of the majority, however unpalatable it might be to liberals. As ArmchairCritic has said, Brexit might not have happened if we'd had as many referendums as the Irish from Maastricht on - the EU, esp. the Commission, might have been given some headaches but it'd have done them good in the long term. But it needs a framework. Brexit is the textbook "how not to" - an "advisory" referendum that isn't advisory, a simple majority which could be reversed by demography within two years allegedly binding us for decades to come, no clear proposition for the winning option etc. The bind we're in now is due to the Parliamentary arithmetic resulting from the '17 GE which in turn is down to the lack of any clear public majority for any one approach to Europe. The one thing a referendum is supposed to do is establish an agreed national position and this one just bloody hasn't, it's established that there is no position - hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Remain - with a consensus. Cameron screwed all of us. Because the executive shows no ability to sort out this mess, it should by default be returned to the people to decide. Should there be another referendum (and I almost persuaded their should be), it should be far far more tightly defined as the its a) Nature, i.e. is it legal binding or merely consultative b) Give opt outs to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland if two thirds or a simple majority vote against the national trend c) Negotiations are conducted on a all-party basis not by one party exclusively. This post came in at the same time that I was writing my response to the same post from Adam in Stroud and to some extent offers an answer to my final query and I certainly accept your points (a) and (b). Less sure about (c) and I'm not quite sure what you mean by "negotiations". Did you mean negotiations to finalise the wording of referendums, or substantive negotiations with the EU? Not sure in either case that could work in practice.
|
|