Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Is that the second rebuff of the day, or is this still the one from earlier this afternoon?

I think the earlier one was Steve Barclay saying "they don't like the ideas that everyone said were shit in 2017".

This one is the other lot saying "we said those ideas were shit back in 2017"

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, snowychap said:

Yawn. What a tiresome pile of shite this is.

How is a referendum not the most direct democratic tool available?

Whether you like referendums/democracy or not, surely this can't be argued?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

I am a Software tester, go with this. I am a Software tester and I get user stories that tell me what to test, because Business Analysts can some times be a bit shit, I get a single line on the functionality and so I am required to test based on a single line. It passes or fails. Then the Business Analyst will return to the user story and add a load of detail that wasn't initially there and it changes everything. With that detail I now need to retest. Initially it passed with such little detail. 

This analogy is real, things change, the democratic tool you talk of was a user story with a single line, now we know the detail, we need to retest. 

No one said that if we held 100 referendums one after another we wouldnt have 100 different % outcomes. Especially now that we learn new facts.

But democracy isn't about that. It's about majorities. I'm not a big fan of 2 idiots having a bigger say than one Oxford professor,  but referendums are the most direct democracy if tool there is. 

That, we cannot argue!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

Wouldn’t this have passed even if Corbyn had whipped against?

In theory, yes but possibly not. Who knows how many Tories may have rebelled (there's been plenty of that going on) if the rebellion was just hold on a minute think about this before you jump in, there may have been plenty.

Supporting it however gave the Tories a free run and the narrative was one of ”both sides support it” not, hold on a minute, there's two ways of doing this, which is the most sensible. Moving forward to the current mess, Labour could at least have pointed out that they advised that was the wrong course of action all the way back then...

What Labour did was effectively say... There's only one way to do this, when that clearly wasn't the case.

It wasn't just the result of the vote, it was the message Labour's support of gung-ho Tory policy sent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

Wouldn’t this have passed even if Corbyn had whipped against?

@bickster has answered perfectly, above. But I’d add that in some respects it’s sometimes more important to do the right thing than the popular thing and that time has a way of rewarding those who do the right thing and harshly judging those who rush to foolish, if at the time popular, things. Think of those who opposed Blair’s rush to war in Iraq (ironically, including Corbyn).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

No one said that if we held 100 referendums one after another we wouldnt have 100 different % outcomes. Especially now that we learn new facts.

But democracy isn't about that. It's about majorities. I'm not a big fan of 2 idiots having a bigger say than one Oxford professor,  but referendums are the most direct democracy if tool there is. 

That, we cannot argue!

Semantically speaking, yes, a referendum is the 'pure' form of democracy. Its origins lie in the ancient Greek city states, when major decisions were voted on by 'everybody' in the city. I put 'everybody' in quotes because it was restricted to educated, property-holding males of a certain age. As as method of policy-making there are many - damn good - reasons why it was pretty soon abandoned in favour of a representational system. Population sizes increased exponentially, life became massively more complicated. It made sense to have a professional political class whose job it was to make those decisions - always answerable of course to the electorate if they screwed up. As Winston Churchill famously said, it's a terrible, flawed system - the only thing worse being any of the alternatives. Bypassing elected assemblies and appealing directly to the masses is a total subversion of the system. It's populism - straight out of the Nazi playbook. 

Edited by mjmooney
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Semantically speaking, yes, a referendum is the 'pure' form of democracy. Its origins lie in the ancient Greek city states, when major decisions were voted on by 'everybody' in the city. I put 'everybody' in quotes because it was restricted to educated, property-holding males of a certain age. As as method of policy-making there are many - damn good - reasons why it was pretty soon abandoned in favour of a representational system. Population sizes increased exponentially, life became massively more complicated. It made sense to have a professional political class whose job it was to make those decisions - always answerable of course to the electorate if they screwed up. As Winston Churchill famously said, it's a terrible, flawed system - the only thing worse being any of the alternatives. Bypassing elected assemblies and appealing directly to the masses is a total subversion of the system. It's populism - straight out of the Nazi playbook. 

We are a sinking ship and rather than letting the captain make the decisions, we asked for a popular vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straightforward yes / no referenda are awful on any issue of importance with nuance or detail. 

It’s why Cameron the book publicist should be too shamed to be flogging his book. He was an absolute abject failure of a PM. Worse than May. He is the root cause of so much trouble. If he had any self awareness he’d have taken his little millionaire’s man shed and **** off to somewhere very very remote with poor WiFi. No no, not chummy David, he’s written a book now as his latest lark. 

Eton boys’ games eh, we all get to be in them. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

We are a sinking ship and rather than letting the captain make the decisions, we asked for a popular vote.

Except that when 'we' asked for a popular vote, while the ship needed some pretty urgent maintenance work, it wasn't anywhere near sinking. The popular vote drilled a **** ing big hole in it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Crew and passengers were unhappy with the way the ship was being run.

The officer class told everyone that everything was the fault of the port authorities and we’d be better off setting sail for El Dorado.

52% of the crew and passengers believe this and have agreed to set sail for El Dorado.

We are still in port and the officers don’t appear to have a **** clue where El Dorado is.

Many just want to set off and see if we find it. There will be sufficient rations for a number of people for a period of time.

48% of the crew and passengers are sceptical that we will find a mythical location without a compass or a paddle.

 

All aboard!

image.png

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Bypassing elected assemblies and appealing directly to the masses is a total subversion of the system. It's populism - straight out of the Nazi playbook.

Peace loving Switzerland, Ireland and others use referenda for major changes. It’s not referenda themselves that are necessarily the flaw, more the way ours was subject to so much dishonesty, cheating and so on was a major factor as well as a lack of information about what we were actually, in reality, voting for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â