|
Post by Tim on Nov 5, 2019 12:46:19 GMT
The Lib Dems need to take another look at the second part of their party name and what that is supposed to mean. I don't see the problem? If your view is that you want to overturn the referendum result then vote for them. If you don't then don't. You have the choice. If enough people vote for them and they get in with a clear majority then Hey Presto! Democracy We're not a police state yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 13:13:20 GMT
I see it is possible to change one's mind in the poll. Swing voting?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 5, 2019 13:41:32 GMT
Of course you can change your mind in the poll. Unlike some, I don't believe in taking a snapshot poll at one moment in time and then baking it in stone as the final word for the rest of time... People are entitled to change their minds (in any way they like) and swing voting is hardly a crime.
In fact I'd argue swing voting was indicative of intelligence in action. Always voting for the same party or position no matter what has never struck me as the height of independent thinking nor intellectual depth.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 5, 2019 13:46:00 GMT
Of course you can change your mind in the poll. Unlike some, I don't believe in taking a snapshot poll at one moment in time and then baking it in stone as the final word for the rest of time... People are entitled to change their minds (in any way they like) and swing voting is hardly a crime. That's an interesting thought. Do you think that with something as important as membership of the EU we should take a vote every three or four years as to whether to stay in or leave. That way we could review the successful and less successful aspects of our membership over the previous few years and see what the people think. If the vote was to leave then in 4 years we might decide to re-join and then stay in 4 years later but then after that we might vote to leave again. Our membership would be directly tied to the value we perceive as getting from it.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 5, 2019 14:11:00 GMT
And that's an interesting response.
I simply said that people are entitled to change their minds and that I didn't believe in discouraging that. Which ought to come as no surprise.
But since you raise it, then on "something as important as membership of the EU", perhaps we should also not treat one narrow result as an immutable one.
But we are where we are and there is no point going over this all again. Let's see what surprises the parties' election campaigns bring and whose lies and/or versions of the truth prevails in the minds of voters.
Focus groups and pollers are reporting that there is a widespread lack of awareness over what actually constitutes Brexit. The overwhelming majority of people contacted think Brexit is done and dusted on the day we leave. When they discover that it isn't and what comes after, the pollers report being confronted with "horrified silence".
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 5, 2019 14:20:00 GMT
And that's an interesting response. I simply said that people are entitled to change their minds and that I didn't believe in discouraging that. Which ought to come as no surprise. But since you raise it, then on " something as important as membership of the EU", perhaps we should also not treat one narrow result as an immutable one. But we are where we are and there is no point going over this all again. Let's see what surprises the parties' election campaigns bring and whose lies and/or versions of the truth prevails in the minds of voters. Focus groups and pollers are reporting that there is a widespread lack of awareness over what actually constitutes Brexit. The overwhelming majority of people contacted think Brexit is done and dusted on the day we leave. When they discover that it isn't and what comes after, the pollers report being confronted with "horrified silence". You just got me thinking with the comment "I don't believe in taking a snapshot poll at one moment in time and then baking it in stone as the final word for the rest of time". Another referendum would be mid 2020 - four years after the last one. If we held another referendum and the decision was to Remain I was thinking 2024 is a long time from now, who knows what state the EU will be in, those people who vote Remain in 2020 must surely be given the option of another vote in 2024 as their snapshot decision in 2020 may not hold true then. They are entitled to change their mind surely?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 14:37:12 GMT
Far too logical, Bob, the swing vote is only allowed as long as the result goes in favour of remaining in the eu. Shirley can see that.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 5, 2019 15:10:32 GMT
People are entitled to change their minds ( in any way they like) and swing voting is hardly a crime. Which bit of this did you not read Mike?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 15:31:35 GMT
Tongue in cheek, not taking any of this seriously. It's not worth it.
What will be will be and I am just waiting for the fog to clear now.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 5, 2019 15:37:31 GMT
I'm not having a go at racing I just don't see how you can solve the problems created by a snapshot poll by having another snapshot pole.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 5, 2019 16:19:37 GMT
I'm not having a go at racing I just don't see how you can solve the problems created by a snapshot poll by having another snapshot pole. And I'm not necessarily saying you can. But since it is at least agreed that we should periodically have elections to rethink who governs , let's see whether a third election in four years can provide clearer guidance.
I rather suspect it won't but there are myriad factors at play. I know plenty of people who are life-long Tories and who are very conflicted. Many of them are against Brexit and can't stand Boris and his unmerry band of cabinet cretins, but at the same time they have a morbid fear that the Red Terror is about to grab the keys of 10DC. That fear, fanned busily by the Times, Telegraph and Mail, is so strong that they feel they cannot vote for any party but the Tories, despite their many reservations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 16:23:46 GMT
A lot of people in the country would agree with another poll but frankly it comes across as sour grapes. We had a referendum and it went against those who wish to remain. If we were to say the majority was smaller than SOME would accept and have another poll/referendum it would open the door to another if the result was either way so we would have perpetual referendums. Just what the remainers want so we are left IN the eu with nothing changing and the dies hards on both sides wanting to brain wash the rest of us.
It should really be in a comic or piece of fiction imho, thing is, nobody would believe the situation could be plausible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 16:25:51 GMT
Viva la monster raving loony party, but which branch?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 5, 2019 16:36:39 GMT
I'm not having a go at racing I just don't see how you can solve the problems created by a snapshot poll by having another snapshot pole. And I'm not necessarily saying you can. But since it is at least agreed that we should periodically have elections to rethink who governs
I guess the difference is the result being implemented.
I'm one of those who sees Corbyn as a far greater threat to us than Brexit but I think given what we know of him that's entirely reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 5, 2019 16:44:58 GMT
A lot of people in the country would agree with another poll but frankly it comes across as sour grapes. We had a referendum and it went against those who wish to remain. If we were to say the majority was smaller than SOME would accept and have another poll/referendum it would open the door to another if the result was either way so we would have perpetual referendums. Just what the remainers want so we are left IN the eu with nothing changing and the dies hards on both sides wanting to brain wash the rest of us. It should really be in a comic or piece of fiction imho, thing is, nobody would believe the situation could be plausible. I just refuse to be complicit in what has always looked to me to be a grave mistake. It's not ideological. If we could leave the EU without it doing damage, then I'd be fine with that. But it seems ever-increasingly certain that we cannot. Not through anyone's fault, but just because not everything in life is actually possible, and the notion of a non-damaging Brexit has always carried a strong whiff of unicorn-shit.
Frankly speaking, if I was a die-hard European (DHE), I'd have been fine with Theresa's deal since I'd have no problem with being tied to the EU without any say.
Equally, if I was a die-hard Brexiteer (DHB), then nothing but No Deal Brexit would do. On that, I am in complete agreement with Nigel Farage.
One of the many problems with Boris is that you cannot be sure what you are voting for. If I was a DHB, I'd worry that we'll end up with BRINO. If I was a DHE, I'd worry that Boris' deal is a Trojan Horse for bouncing Parliament into a No Deal at the end of 2020.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 16:58:33 GMT
You had your say in the referendum, continually pointing out that everyone who voted to leave made a mistake is at best pointless and your opinion only. NONE of us know we will be damaged and nobody can believe in golden tarmac either.
All the hot air in the world adds up to a balloon going nowhere, probably full of holes just like your statement. Since when has accepting a democratic result been complicity? You do not like it, fine. Did we have all this crap after the last referendum which produced a remain result? No. Sour grapes is about it.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 5, 2019 17:05:46 GMT
And I'm not necessarily saying you can. But since it is at least agreed that we should periodically have elections to rethink who governs
I guess the difference is the result being implemented.
I'm one of those who sees Corbyn as a far greater threat to us than Brexit but I think given what we know of him that's entirely reasonable.
Not necessarily. Governments get elected and then routinely fail to implement what they promised. Begging the question of whether it is the wrapper or the contents that matter.
I disagree that it is reasonable to see a reversible decision (the election of a government with a five year mandate) as a greater risk than a non-reversible decision (we could never re-join the EU on the special terms we previously enjoyed). That's just illogical.
Plus you have to look at how realistic a risk it is. Quite apart from the fact that Corbyn needs to gain at least 64 more seats (71 if you assume he loses all the Scottish MPs) to have even a bare overall majority, let alone the sort of majority that would enable him to drive through unopposed the controversial policies that you fear, there's also the small matter that at least half of his own parliamentary party oppose those policies as well.
And even if he did, if those policies were unpopular in the country, he'd get turfed out pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Nov 5, 2019 17:08:41 GMT
I think we have already been damaged.
It was me who changed my vote, incidentally. I haven't cancelled my party membership yet, but I am perilously close.
There is a rally in Consett being organised by that Corbynist twit Laura Pidcock. She posted something on her Facebook page about it being disgraceful that hospital parking is run by private companies and it is time the Tories were booted out.
I refrained from mentioning that the biggest take up of PFI was under the last Labour government. Despite it being that evil John Major's invention, it was hardly utilised under the Conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 5, 2019 17:14:37 GMT
You had your say in the referendum, continually pointing out that everyone who voted to leave made a mistake is at best pointless and your opinion only. NONE of us know we will be damaged and nobody can believe in golden tarmac either. All the hot air in the world adds up to a balloon going nowhere, probably full of holes just like your statement. Since when has accepting a democratic result been complicity? You do not like it, fine. Did we have all this crap after the last referendum which produced a remain result? No. Sour grapes is about it. A. Yes we know we will be damaged by a No Deal Brexit. It's no longer a matter of opinion.
B. Yes, we had all this crap after the '70s referendum. In fact we had four decades of it culminating in a second referendum.
C. This is a free country. A Tory voter does not suddenly start agreeing with Labour policies just because Labour wins an election. Equally, I am not required to agree with, or support, Brexit and I am perfectly entitled to vote against it without that being undemocratic. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 5, 2019 17:32:40 GMT
I guess the difference is the result being implemented.
I'm one of those who sees Corbyn as a far greater threat to us than Brexit but I think given what we know of him that's entirely reasonable.
Not necessarily. Governments get elected and then routinely fail to implement what they promised. Begging the question of whether it is the wrapper or the contents that matter.
I disagree that it is reasonable to see a reversible decision (the election of a government with a five year mandate) as a greater risk than a non-reversible decision (we could never re-join the EU on the special terms we previously enjoyed). That's just illogical.
Plus you have to look at how realistic a risk it is. Quite apart from the fact that Corbyn needs to gain at least 64 more seats (71 if you assume he loses all the Scottish MPs) to have even a bare overall majority, let alone the sort of majority that would enable him to drive through unopposed the controversial policies that you fear, there's also the small matter that at least half of his own parliamentary party oppose those policies as well.
And even if he did, if those policies were unpopular in the country, he'd get turfed out pretty quickly.
The failure to implement a manifesto is quite different as we still implement the government that was elected.
In terms of Corbyn, the executive powers alone are cause for concern. What will he do with Trident, military intelligence, will he recognise Palestine and break off diplomatic relations with Israel? What will he do to our relationship with the US? He doesn't need a working majority to truly fuck over the country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 17:59:38 GMT
I never heard a peep beyond about six months after the result. There may have been a few gripes but NOTHING like we are seeing now. Did we have mp's ranting on for years about people "Not knowing what they voted for and it was a mistake" and being told they should "Change their minds"? None that I heard.
"A. Yes we know we will be damaged by a No Deal Brexit. It's no longer a matter of opinion".
Why are you dragging that old dinosaur out of the bag, like it's the only option. Scare mongering is extremely poor taste at very best.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 6, 2019 11:07:39 GMT
He doesn't need a working majority to truly fuck over the country. Well he would have that in common with Boris and the Tories then.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 6, 2019 11:14:39 GMT
I never heard a peep beyond about six months after the result. There may have been a few gripes but NOTHING like we are seeing now. Did we have mp's ranting on for years about people "Not knowing what they voted for and it was a mistake" and being told they should "Change their minds"? None that I heard.
"A. Yes we know we will be damaged by a No Deal Brexit. It's no longer a matter of opinion".
Why are you dragging that old dinosaur out of the bag, like it's the only option. Scare mongering is extremely poor taste at very best.
A few gripes? Don't talk balls. Tedious noisy right-wing Tory Eurosceptism has been something I can remember all my life - the so-called "swivel-eyed loons" have been the bane of the last four Tory PMs. It's why we are now where we are.
Despite everything, NDB remains a live option and it isn't scaremongering - simply not having one's head buried deep in the comforting sand. It is the default position at the end of next year if we can't agree a trade agreement during what is left of the original transition period.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 6, 2019 11:22:43 GMT
He doesn't need a working majority to truly fuck over the country. Well he would have that in common with Boris and the Tories then.
No, not even slightly the same.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 6, 2019 11:27:03 GMT
Well he would have that in common with Boris and the Tories then.
No, not even slightly the same. That's your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 6, 2019 11:29:30 GMT
Do you think BoJO trying to deliver on the referendum result is comparable with someone causing deliberate and massive destruction to our intelligence services as the same?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 6, 2019 11:42:33 GMT
In terms of Corbyn, the executive powers alone are cause for concern. What will he do with Trident, military intelligence, will he recognise Palestine and break off diplomatic relations with Israel? What will he do to our relationship with the US? He doesn't need a working majority to truly fuck over the country.
I doubt Corbyn would get the cancellation of Trident through Parliament but I could certainly see him starving the armed forces of budget until it became impossible to fund both the subs and put boots on the troops, meaning they have to take the decision themselves.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 6, 2019 11:46:23 GMT
He could announce that he wouldn't authorise Trident in any circumstances under executive powers and even announce where it's deployed. There's a lot he can do to damage the security services without going near parliament.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 6, 2019 12:17:10 GMT
He could announce that he wouldn't authorise Trident in any circumstances under executive powers and even announce where it's deployed. There's a lot he can do to damage the security services without going near parliament. Yes and Parliament can call a vote of no confidence at that point, and probably win it in short order. Next straw man please.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 6, 2019 12:23:41 GMT
The SNP and Lib Dems are against Trident so is that confidence vote an issue? Your argument is that parliament can limit a dangerous PM but is it sane to put someone dangerous in that position of power in the first place? And to be clear I don't think BoJo dangerous or in the same league of being a threat as Corbyn. In terms of straw men do you know anyone Jewish?
|
|