EU referendum are you in or out

[Dio]

But that would be a more fair result of the election, right?

I hate UKIP as much as the next man, but that they scored so few seats for so many votes at the previous election is simply wrong. And it's contributing to the feeling that people are denied a voice and towards the aggressive polarisation of politics.

And then my vote would be worth more than 1/100th of a vote, and the vote of someone in a marginal wouldn't be worth literally ten thousand times as much as mine.

[venusian]

Of course, these things are only a problem because we insist on a "first past the post" system, rather than "proportional representation" - which would somewhat nullify the need for any tactical voting.

Aye - but on the other side of the coin, it'd also probably mean the Brexit Party occupying a very significant number of seats if there was a GE right now, as it would've done for UKIP in 2017: https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/firs ... equalvotes - not sure how I feel about that. I can imagine some scary coalitions with the nasty party.

That's fine. Those voices need to be out there because then they're subject to the same scrutiny as everything else - they would be required to present solid cases rather than throw in soundbites from the periphery. UKIP and the Brexit company would never have grown to the extent they did if they weren't the excluded plucky outsiders.

[(o)(o)]

Of course, these things are only a problem because we insist on a "first past the post" system, rather than "proportional representation" - which would somewhat nullify the need for any tactical voting.

(Which is consistent on the part of the Lib Dems, as they've always argued for PR. Now the main parties - increasingly losing their electoral monopoly, falling into third and fourth places in some elections - might start appreciating the wisdom of "don't kick people on your way up the ladder, in case you meet them again on the way down".)

It’s a pity then that they bolloxed it by going along with the AV stitch up - nobody wanted AV - during the coalition! We’re now stuck with FPTP for good knows how many years.

@Dio Can you articulate what you consider as incompetence in Labour? I think democracy can and should look messy in practice as it’s a process of convergence of diverging views, but I’ve yet to see a coherent argument on this besides tittle tattle in the press? I mean, compared to other parties, and something of substance? Also not sure where the confusion is regarding the Brexit deal Labour would seek. It’s been stated often, a customs union and keeping close alignment to the single market.

[KlaxonCow]

It’s a pity then that they bolloxed it by going along with the AV stitch up - nobody wanted AV - during the coalition!

Yes. I think, though, that this was all that the Tories would ever offer them.

But I agree that the Lib Dems should have simply declined, said "that's not PR" and not endorsed it.

I think what happened was that, during coalition negotiations, the Lib Dems put "we want a referendum on PR" and the Tories agreed to that... then stitched them up later, by offering a referendum on the shitty AV, knowing that nobody wanted that.

If you look back, this was a pattern that Cameron followed. He called referenda to shut people up.

So the Lib Dems could get their PR referendum, as promised, but he rigged it so that they'd never win. But it shuts them up for a generation, right?

Then he gave the Scots their independence referendum, and they voted to stay in the UK. So that shuts up the Scottish nationalists for a generation, right?

And, having scored two for two on this referendum gambit, he decided to take a punt on a third. He'd offer a Brexit referendum and - as everyone expected - Remain would win and then he could shut up the Eurosceptics in his party for a generation, right?

Unfortunately, wrong. The result came out backwards, he rage quit and we've been stuck in this cesspit ever since.

He should have hesitated when the Scottish referendum was so bloody close to being a loss. Counted his blessings that that particular punt actually barely paid off and then quit while he was ahead with this risky referendum lark. But, no, he had to go one referendum too far, didn't he?

In a certain sense, you can have some admiration for Cameron's style of not shying away from these awkward issues but saying "fuck it" and calling a vote to settle it, one way or the other, for its courage. That, on these awkward problems, he took a "look, put up or shut up" attitude on it to try to get a settled consensus on it.

But, equally, it was massively risky and reckless as hell, as we're all now collectively suffering with fucking Brexit - and will continue to suffer because most folks still don't appreciate that we're still only arguing about the Withdrawal Agreement, and the actual trade negotiations and implementations and all that bollocks is still to come! This is not the beginning of the end, this is the complete failure to even get an end on the beginning.

I'm thinking, though, that what really happened was that the Lib Dems - cocky in their role as "king makers" - put "a referendum on PR" onto their list of coalition demands and the Tories said "yes" - but, all along, were planning to bury it by choosing the shittiest version of PR that exists, knowing that even its staunchest advocates would look at AV and hate it. So the referendum would be a clear "no" and then the subject would be dead for a generation.

A politician's promise.

Like a kid asking his parents for a bike for Christmas and they say "we'll see". Well, they registered the possibility, so you've just got to accept that, right? And then, on Christmas Day, no bike. "Well, we thought it over and decided no". They only said "we'll see", so that you'd shut up and stop nagging them. The decision was always "no" all along.

[Dio]

@Dio Can you articulate what you consider as incompetence in Labour? I think democracy can and should look messy in practice as it’s a process of convergence of diverging views, but I’ve yet to see a coherent argument on this besides tittle tattle in the press? I mean, compared to other parties, and something of substance? Also not sure where the confusion is regarding the Brexit deal Labour would seek. It’s been stated often, a customs union and keeping close alignment to the single market.

Brexit, most obviously. I mean, that policy you say there is the one that's most obviously, provably, utterly stupid. There is absolutely zero advantage to being "just outside" where being inside would be superior except in the narrow political condition of meeting the letter of the referendum. There is no way that anyone that voted to leave would be content with "Keeping every EU rule with no say in their creation". It's trivially argued against and an obviously ridiculous position. At least the hard-brexit freaks have the advantage that their position isn't provably dumb, since it's a wild drive of the cliff and they can argue that maybe the car can fly, but we won't know unless we try.

But ignoring that, I think their policy planning has frequently been haphazard, the front bench team - who aren't subject to what you describe above, they're supposed to project the decided policy - is frequently inconsistent at best and incoherent at worst, and they do have a problem reigning in the classic left wing instincts of wild budgeting: many of their notional costings have been, let's say, optimistic, and the screaming of "save jobs at all costs" with each of these failing businesses is unwise at best and just plain dumb at worst, for example. You don't save business by government handout. You need to fix the real problems or let it go.

Generally, listening to Labour on R5 is an exercise in getting three different views a day - often from Corbyn on a soundbite and then John McD with something less messy at the end. He seems to be the only person who can reliably hang on to a coherent position, but spends all his time cleaning up after everyone else. I'm not talking here about what "the evil media" are saying people are saying: it's their actual words, in ten+ minute interviews (although, obviously never with Corbyn since he hardly ever does those any more as it's fallen out of fashion).

And, most obviously, that any Labour party that was competently led should have demolished the obviously utterly incompetent shower sat before them. I'm not arguing they're any better. They're also a hopeless shitshow. But Labour come across no better, and given that my main sources are R5 and the Guardian I'm not really prepared for this to be called out as "horrible media bias".

[Absolute_Zero]

I'm reading reports from bRight-on that will delight Farage.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ing-rights

[Dio]

And it's another great example of the lack of joined up thinking. They commit to freedom of movement and the softest Brexit possible, and also commit hard to not stating whether they back Leave or Remain. Why not, um, just stay? It's stupidity, and everyone sees it: the remainers think it's cowardice, the leavers think it's remain, and anyone in the middle might well think it's a political party trying to dishonestly be everything to everyone, or wonder ask why we don't want to have any control over the rules we'll be obeying.

Why put yourself in such a dumb position where everyone can kick you?

[tufty]

Of course, wherever you live and wherever you came from, you surely have exactly the same right to vote however which way you want to vote and that's not at all at issue

Not actually true.

Long term UK resident EU citizens didn't get to vote. Long term EU resident UK citizens didn't get to vote, and many not-so-long-term EU resident UK citizens had enough trouble jumping through the hoops required to vote that they didn't mange to register.

Not that this is a sore point for me. Oh no.

[merman]

So we have an Attorney General who gave unlawful advice calling Parliament "a disgrace".

What a shower of shit.

[Harlequin]

And it's another great example of the lack of joined up thinking. They commit to freedom of movement and the softest Brexit possible, and also commit hard to not stating whether they back Leave or Remain. Why not, um, just stay? It's stupidity, and everyone sees it: the remainers think it's cowardice, the leavers think it's remain, and anyone in the middle might well think it's a political party trying to dishonestly be everything to everyone, or wonder ask why we don't want to have any control over the rules we'll be obeying.

Why put yourself in such a dumb position where everyone can kick you?

While I would of course prefer to dump Brexit, I can see some sense in the Labour position. Immediately cancelling Article 50 would mightily piss off the many millions of people who voted to leave the EU, a large proportion of whom seem far more rabid than their remain-voting equivalents. Allowing a referendum choice between remaining and leaving with a known deal would be more palliative. It would not entirely heal the rifts caused by the previous referendum but it might succeed in not further deepening our divisions.

[Rhythm]

Allowing a referendum choice between remaining and leaving with a known deal would be more palliative. It would not entirely heal the rifts caused by the previous referendum but it might succeed in not further deepening our divisions.

All things considered, the LD plan of "Revoke, Review, Revote" is by far the most sensible one right now. But we don't live in "considered" times. I just watched Corbyn announce "Yes, we'd support a GE if you agree to extend A50" get *immediately* spun into "Look, look, he's a muppet who can't make his mind up" live in Parliament. The LD plan just gets relayed as "they want to break democracy!!!!", despite it being the only true way to get things back on track.

The problem with the politics we have is that you're asked to choose the party who represents your view strongest on one single angle. Which is bullshit. Putting loose figures on it, I agree with 10-20% of Tory policies, 60-70% of Labour, 15% of LD, 90% of Greens... But the devil is in the other shit. Voting for parties feels like a really shitty way of dealing with politics. I long for the day when we can start voting on individual policies so a true sense of what the people *actually* want can be gleaned. When Jeremy's fence-sitting during the 2017 GE meant that parliament carried on with a "mandate showing 83% of voters support Leave", I knew things were truly fucked. *That* was where I knew our way of doing "democracy" was totally and utterly wrecked

[Harlequin]

I have only just learned, watching Bercow on parliament.tv, that some people who want to remain in the EU have been just as rabid as some who want to leave in issuing death threats to MPs.

[phattslagg]

All things considered, the LD plan of "Revoke, Review, Revote" is by far the most sensible one right now.

No. It will be seen as a betrayal of the first vote. Labour’s plan respects it, and offers a ray of hope for Remain.

A vote for Lib Dem will put the tories back in power - and with their recent recruits, this will be true even in the stunningly unlikely event of them winning an actual majority.

[Harlequin]

All things considered, the LD plan of "Revoke, Review, Revote" is by far the most sensible one right now.

No. It will be seen as a betrayal of the first vote. Labour’s plan respects it, and offers a ray of hope for Remain.

Indeed. As Rhythm continued:

But we don't live in "considered" times.

A vote for Lib Dem will put the tories back in power - and with their recent recruits, this will be true even in the stunningly unlikely event of them winning an actual majority.

I disagree. Many marginal seats swinging from Labour to LibDem could result in a Conservative majority but I doubt that even that will happen.

[Absolute_Zero]

I long for the day when we can start voting on individual policies [...]

That will be the day that I take to the hills with a sniper rifle.