New Tory Leader

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

I think SKS is actually playing his hand very well at present. Still a year (or two) to the next GE. 20 point lead.

Already some bold policies but largely uncontentious or indeed welcomed  - Energy, Lords reform, NHS etc. Even Private Schools.

What he doesn't need at present are any very divisive hostages to fortune - Brexit or some of the more radical left Labour polices that could be easily attacked by a partisan press. He needs to win and win big. Plenty of time for these when relevant in a second term if things have at least stabilized. He and Labour above everything have to look and behave like a proper grown up PM & party in waiting (so keep sufficiently distanced from the strikes) to contrast with incumbents.

Corbyn by contrast only ever really appealed to his base - the 10 to 20%. Always protesting but never in office. And yes he should have thrown himself into Remain heart and soul - but he had no leadership qualities just a stuck in 70's mindset. 

💯

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

Frankly I didn’t want them to “abide by the results of the referendum” as part of their manifesto at the later general election. That’s not how politics works. Their manifesto for the next election won’t be “you voted the tories in last time so we’ll abide by what you wanted then”. 

How absurd and profoundly undemocratic. The referendum was on the specific issue of EU membership. No political party which wished to be considered democratic could simply ignore that massive public vote. Labour's GE position of respecting the vote was absolutely in line with respecting democracy, as was the further commitment to offering a final binding vote on the renegotiated deal. 

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

The text you posted did exactly what I said I and others didn’t like about the Labour Party. I initially said that in my post to KG where the gripe was that the Labour Party weren’t strong enough in their own policies. You then posted a link to a policy that was “we’ll probably do this if you tell us to do so but we won’t tel you what we actually think”.

Absurd as usual. The manifesto pledge was absolutely clear and nothing remotely like your pathetic re-written rubbish.

 

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

While you are certainly very militant in your support of the Labour party, I do hope you’re not running for election as a councillor with the party or anything like that. What they need is more people actually willing to think about why they’re losing elections and what they can do to win people back. Not people who continue to tell historic Labour party voters that their concerns about the party are wrong and they should just suck it up. 

Hopefully people like you who simply lie about Labour Party policy and actually support far right-wing false narratives will be ignored (sensibly that's precisely what Starmer has done) Strange that the Labour Party has now been well over 20 points ahead of the Tories for months, but according to you are failing to connect with disillusioned voters. I guess that shows that people like me have been thinking rather hard about "why they [were] losing elections and what they can do to win people back".

Edited January 13, 2023 by horsefly

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

9 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Absurd as usual. The manifesto pledge was absolutely clear and nothing remotely like your pathetic re-written rubbish.

 

Seems a bit harsh. Aggy seems to want politicians to state their opinions clearly and say "this is what we'll do, see if you agree" where manifestoes are very binding, and links this to being "strong in their policies". My stance is the other way around - manifestoes are more like guidelines and that politicians should listen before crafting legislation that is in line with those guidelines.

He wants strength in policy, I want strength in a commitment to listen. They're not necessarily polar opposites even if the direction of travel is.

[horsefly 4,301]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Seems a bit harsh. Aggy seems to want politicians to state their opinions clearly and say "this is what we'll do, see if you agree" where manifestoes are very binding, and links this to being "strong in their policies". My stance is the other way around - manifestoes are more like guidelines and that politicians should listen before crafting legislation that is in line with those guidelines.

He wants strength in policy, I want strength in a commitment to listen. They're not necessarily polar opposites even if the direction of travel is.

I don't think it's harsh at all Gunny. Anyone listening to the Labour Party policy on Brexit during the referendum could be in no doubt that the Labour Party opposed leaving the EU. Anyone listening to or reading the manifesto pledge for the 2019 general election could be in no doubt exactly what the Labour Party would do re Brexit immediately upon victory. They stated very clearly they would accept the referendum result, stated very clearly the principles upon which they would renegotiate the disastrous Johnson deal, stated very clearly that they would subject that deal to another public vote, stated very clearly that the subsequent vote would be implemented as legally binding. I'm afraid that Aggy is simply repeating far-right false propaganda narratives that the Labour Party lacked clarity on their position re Brexit during these periods. 

I have always been a full-on remain supporter. However, there remains a section of remain supporters who have decided uncritically to adopt that part of the right-wing propaganda that the remain group really lost the referendum and subsequent debate because Labour were ambiguous in their position on Brexit. All the evidence demonstrates that to be nonsense.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Just now, horsefly said:

I don't think it's harsh at all Gunny. Anyone listening to the Labour Party policy on Brexit during the referendum could be in no doubt that the Labour Party opposed leaving the EU. Anyone listening to or reading the manifesto pledge for the 2019 general election could be in no doubt exactly what the Labour Party would do re Brexit immediately upon victory. They stated very clearly they would accept the referendum result, stated very clearly the principles upon which they would renegotiate the disastrous Johnson deal, stated very clearly that they would subject that deal to another public vote, stated very clearly that the subsequent vote would be implemented as legally binding. I'm afraid that Aggy is simply repeating far-right false propaganda narratives that the Labour Party lacked clarity on their position re Brexit during these periods. 

I have always been a full-on remain supporter. However, there remains a section of remain supporters who have decided uncritically to adopt that part of the right-wing propaganda that the remain group really lost the referendum and subsequent debate because Labour were ambiguous in their position on Brexit. All the evidence demonstrates that to be nonsense.

Agree that it was clear - but it's clear to anyone who naturally prefers a very "bottom-up" approach to democracy and politics. Plenty of economic left-wingers still prefer the state to be more "top-down" about matters though.

It was very clear that this was their approach. What wasn't clear was the final result as by definition, when you suddenly change the rules of engagement such that the rank-and-file like us are more involved than before, that's increasingly for us to set. When your stance is basically "let the people decide", the clarity is in that aspect, not the final outcome.

[horsefly 4,301]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Agree that it was clear - but it's clear to anyone who naturally prefers a very "bottom-up" approach to democracy and politics. Plenty of economic left-wingers still prefer the state to be more "top-down" about matters though.

It was very clear that this was their approach. What wasn't clear was the final result as by definition, when you suddenly change the rules of engagement such that the rank-and-file like us are more involved than before, that's increasingly for us to set. When your stance is basically "let the people decide", the clarity is in that aspect, not the final outcome.

Indeed, there are a number of issues that arise in regard to referendums and democracy and the role of public. But I was responding to Aggy's false and frankly lazy claims that the Labour Party's stance on Brexit was neither one thing or the other.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Just now, horsefly said:

Indeed, there are a number of issues that arise in regard to referendums and democracy and the role of public. But I was responding to Aggy's false and frankly lazy claims that the Labour Party's stance on Brexit was neither one thing or the other.

That's where I thought it was a little harsh. Sure, it's not hard to see how the Tories could paint it as dithering and indecisive as a means of making political capital out of it, but this is why I mentioned voter mindsets and the difference between those who want a top-down approach with how they could potentially perceive it - compared to at least us two who prefer something with a greater focus on electorate wants, then telling politicians to work with that.

[horsefly 4,301]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

That's where I thought it was a little harsh. Sure, it's not hard to see how the Tories could paint it as dithering and indecisive as a means of making political capital out of it, but this is why I mentioned voter mindsets and the difference between those who want a top-down approach with how they could potentially perceive it - compared to at least us two who prefer something with a greater focus on electorate wants, then telling politicians to work with that.

I'm not sure he agrees with you on that. He seemed more than clear that he wanted the Labour Party to say the Brexit was rubbish and the referendum result should simply be ignored. This is what he said earlier, " I’d have loved them to come out and say sod this we think it’s a load of rubbish and will do what we can to reverse / oppose it."

[benchwarmer 625]

44 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Hopefully people like you who simply lie about Labour Party policy and actually support far right-wing false narratives will be ignored (sensibly that's precisely what Starmer has done) Strange that the Labour Party has now been well over 20 points ahead of the Tories for months, but according to you are failing to connect with disillusioned voters. I guess that shows that people like me have been thinking rather hard about "why they [were] losing elections and what they can do to win people back".

Interesting comment from SKS on the Northern Ireland situation, suggesting that a "Brexit purity cult" is getting in the way of a solution to the border issue.

[Barbe bleu 827]

40 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Agree that it was clear - but it's clear to anyone who naturally prefers a very "bottom-up" approach to democracy and politics. Plenty of economic left-wingers still prefer the state to be more "top-down" about matters though.

It was very clear that this was their approach. What wasn't clear was the final result as by definition, when you suddenly change the rules of engagement such that the rank-and-file like us are more involved than before, that's increasingly for us to set. When your stance is basically "let the people decide", the clarity is in that aspect, not the final outcome.

Labour's support for remain during the referendum was clear and unequivocal, or as corbyn famously put it "7-7.5 out of 10" clear.  With that  'absolutely ringing endorsement' delivered through the obviously gritted teeth of a hard line Bennite lexiteer seemingly forced to say the best thing he could.

That was followed up of course with the utterly decisive policy of 2019: "no way are we campaigning to stay. Instead  we'll negotiate terms to leave and then put it to referendum.  As it would be our deal we might struggle to support the stay option but let's keep that on the down low for now too" 

I'm not saying that the policies weren't either sensible or desirable but it would  be revisionism if someone said  that Labour was avidly in the stay camp. 

* for avoidance of doubt (and avoidance of an exclamation mark after second word post) I'm not suggesting that this is what horsefly is saying. I'm not replying to them.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

5 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

Interesting comment from SKS on the Northern Ireland situation, suggesting that a "Brexit purity cult" is getting in the way of a solution to the border issue.

I'm sure that's true both here and in NI. 

In reality of course we all have to compromise to work with our immediate neighbours. It's not the dark ages. No sovereignty these days is absolute - the markets made that very clear to Truss!

As to the HF, Aggy, TGS comments can't help but think it was clear what Labour proposed - and yes anybody sane would indeed have had a confirmatory referendum on whatever eventual Brexit deal was proposed (what was the analogy - decided to move house, sold it but hadn't a clue where you were moving too - end result homeless) including the option of perhaps this wasn't really a good idea at all once the detail was known and the hangover from the night before had passed. Any referendum has to be FOR a narrowly defined outcome not a catchall Negative (as what happened - No meant very different things to many - many a Brexiteer stated we could stay in the SM etc). Any way the proof of that is the growing and large Brexit regret factor now present. Yes many were treated as mugs - some still are.

Sadly the Brexity lobby had the idea of a confirmatory 2nd ref portrayed as a betrayal and so we end up where we are. Adrift, rudderless, hopeless.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Policies are important, but an opposition is better off creating themes for policies in opposition through criticism of government decisions, and/or failing to tackle obvious problems,  than it is laying out in any detail what it would do instead.

If you've criticised government for something and laid out your own plan of attack, then government can either turn it around by picking holes in your policies, or simply steal your policies and implement them, which neutralises your opposition and leaves you with one less thing to offer as an alternative government when the time comes for a GE.

In fairness, in an ideal world where everyone was invested in being constructive and doing what's best for the country, then maybe that's the way it should be, but in an adversial system you have to play your cards close to your chest until you're ready to play your hand. It's yet another argument in favour of electoral reform to a system that forces more cooperation between parties!

 

That is why I resigned my Labour Party membership. I am more aligned to the Green Party now and will be voting for them at the next GE.

If there was one decent party who stayed loyal to their beliefs, then there would be no need for an opposition. A lot of the Tory and Labour siht is down to their Constitutency Committees. Silvia and Giles for the Tories and now Silvia and Giles for Labour.

I couldn't care less if the Tories wanted to go back to Victorian times. If there was a decent opposition, their policies would fail. But SKS is just as much happy to prevaricate about everything under the illusion that its best to say nothing while the Tories fail. Bull. Get out there and tell us what you want for the country in 20 years time not just to win the next GE.

We will give the country what they wanted he says. The Leave campaign did that. Those who voted leave have got their new passports. So many immigrants have left because you persecuted them. We have our own laws now.  And now we are going to hedge our bets and give them what they want with a silly bivalent vote.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

That is why I resigned my Labour Party membership. I am more aligned to the Green Party now and will be voting for them at the next GE.

If there was one decent party who stayed loyal to their beliefs, then there would be no need for an opposition. A lot of the Tory and Labour siht is down to their Constitutency Committees. Silvia and Giles for the Tories and now Silvia and Giles for Labour.

I couldn't care less if the Tories wanted to go back to Victorian times. If there was a decent opposition, their policies would fail. But SKS is just as much happy to prevaricate about everything under the illusion that its best to say nothing while the Tories fail. Bull. Get out there and tell us what you want for the country in 20 years time not just to win the next GE.

We will give the country what they wanted he says. The Leave campaign did that. Those who voted leave have got their new passports. So many immigrants have left because you persecuted them. We have our own laws now.  And now we are going to hedge our bets and give them what they want with a silly bivalent vote.

If you drew a Venn diagram of beliefs within the modern 'broad church' Labour party, the Green party, and the Lib Dems, I think the Lib Dems' and Green Party's circles would be almost entirely inside the Labour party circle, and with a fair bit of overlap between the two of them. The main dividing line between hardcore Lib Dems and Greens versus Labour members is whether you believe a broad churh party is really viable in this day and age and whether you're prepared to tolerate a two-party system that came about in a day before political parties became overly ideological.

This is why I strongly believe in the necessity of electoral reform for the Commons, because everybody would be happier seeing public policy debate between parties where their idelological views were being aired and discussed at the top level instead of that being a closed-door affair in a 'broad church' party in majority government.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

9 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If you drew a Venn diagram of beliefs within the modern 'broad church' Labour party, the Green party, and the Lib Dems, I think the Lib Dems' and Green Party's circles would be almost entirely inside the Labour party circle, and with a fair bit of overlap between the two of them. The main dividing line between hardcore Lib Dems and Greens versus Labour members is whether you believe a broad churh party is really viable in this day and age and whether you're prepared to tolerate a two-party system that came about in a day before political parties became overly ideological.

This is why I strongly believe in the necessity of electoral reform for the Commons, because everybody would be happier seeing public policy debate between parties where their idelological views were being aired and discussed at the top level instead of that being a closed-door affair in a 'broad church' party in majority government.

Yes - the issue is you have to win under our FPTP (so a broad church by necessity) to have any hope of implementing your possibly more narrow polices.

Brexit happened simply by deceit and ignorance of what was really proposed (Hence we needed a vote on the actual deal). I wonder if they would have won if they had stated that we will leave the SM, CU, EFA, EFTA and not make it sound as if nothing would change (apart from fewer immigrants) ? Unreal.

[horsefly 4,301]

44 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Labour's support for remain during the referendum was clear and unequivocal, or as corbyn famously put it "7-7.5 out of 10" clear.  With that  'absolutely ringing endorsement' delivered through the obviously gritted teeth of a hard line Bennite lexiteer seemingly forced to say the best thing he could.

That was followed up of course with the utterly decisive policy of 2019: "no way are we campaigning to stay. Instead  we'll negotiate terms to leave and then put it to referendum.  As it would be our deal we might struggle to support the stay option but let's keep that on the down low for now too" 

I'm not saying that the policies weren't either sensible or desirable but it would  be revisionism if someone said  that Labour was avidly in the stay camp. 

* for avoidance of doubt (and avoidance of an exclamation mark after second word post) I'm not suggesting that this is what horsefly is saying. I'm not replying to them.

Don't mix up Corbyn's personal view on Brexit with the official view of the Labour Party (His comment you quoted was about HIS personal view NOT that of the Labour Party). There was far more division in the Tory Party than Labour during the campaign. It's simply wrong to deny that Labour were avidly in the remain camp at the time of the referendum (that would be genuine revisionism). After the vote result it was absolutely justified of the Labour Party to say it would respect that vote (especially given that they had promised to do precisely that). Thus it follows they couldn't possibly be in the "stay camp" after the vote. I really don't see what you're supposed to be claiming here; are you claiming that it should have still supported remaining despite its promise to respect the referendum result?

Edited January 13, 2023 by horsefly

[Barbe bleu 827]

40 minutes ago, horsefly said:

 I really don't see what you're supposed to be claiming here; are you claiming that it should have still supported remaining despite its promise to respect the referendum result?

I think the 2019 position was honest, fairly sensible and pretty balanced.  Not good politics but that's a different issue.

The Lib dems nailed their colours to the mast and the ship quickly sunk (though the ship was in fact submarine from the start).  If Labour had followed suit it would probably have joined the under sea fleet so I wouldn't have suggested it.

I can't actually remember what the Labour Party's official line was in 2016. And it probably doesn't matter what the official line was,  its perception  that matters.   Corbyn grudgingly gave the EU a mark of 70-75%, damned the EU with feint praise (probably knowingly) and set what a lot of people thought was labour's position regardless of what individual MPs, members or the national executive thought it was or should be.

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[horsefly 4,301]

1 minute ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think the 2019 position was honest, fairly sensible and pretty balanced.  Not good politics but that's a different issue.

The Lib dems nailed their colours to the mast and the ship quickly sunk (though the ship was in fact submarine from the start).  If Labour had followed suit it would probably have joined the under sea fleet so I wouldn't have suggested it.

I can't actually remember what the Labour Party's official line was in 2016. And it probably doesn't matter what the official line was,  its perception  that matters.   Corbyn grudgingly gave the EU a mark of 70-75%, damned the EU with feint praise and set what a lot of people thought was labour's position regardless of what individual MPs, members or the national executive thought it was or should be.

 

 

 

Indeed! I have expressed my contempt for Corbyn's leadership on many occasions. However, it stretches credulity somewhat to suggest members of the public were influenced to vote leave because Corbyn said he was about 70-75% in favour of the EU. The reality is that the public vote demonstrated very clearly that political party loyalty played virtually no part at all in determining an individual's vote for leave or remain. All the major parties were overwhelmingly in favour of remain, yet the voters themselves clearly voted in favour of leave in defiance of the advice of those representing their normal political allegiances.

As regards the present discussion it remains the case that Labour's official position on Brexit, both during the referendum and after the vote, was expressed very clearly and consistently. There was little it could do about people who were either too ignorant to understand simple English, or who were not remotely interested in discovering the truth about Labour's position but preferred believing the bigotry and lies of the right-wing press (since LYB mentioned venn diagrams earlier, I am tempted to speculate that the two circles in this case share a considerable overlap).

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

3 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think the 2019 position was honest, fairly sensible and pretty balanced.  Not good politics but that's a different issue.

The Lib dems nailed their colours to the mast and the ship quickly sunk (though the ship was in fact submarine from the start).  If Labour had followed suit it would probably have joined the under sea fleet so I wouldn't have suggested it.

I can't actually remember what the Labour Party's official line was in 2016. And it probably doesn't matter what the official line was,  its perception  that matters.   Corbyn grudgingly gave the EU a mark of 70-75%, damned the EU with feint praise (probably knowingly) and set what a lot of people thought was labour's position regardless of what individual MPs, members or the national executive thought it was or should be.

 

 

 

The Lib Dems didn't sink over their policy. They actually went from a 2015 low of 7% of the popular vote to about 11% of the popular vote in 2019. What undermined them was the constituency-by-constituency spoiler effect of first past the post, where votes for an actual remain party was deterred by the fear of taking away votes from their least disliked option between Labour and the Conservatives.

KGs view underlines that people want to vote for parties that more closely agree with their personal beliefs and he's not alone in that. This is impossible with first past the post.

Edited January 13, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

12 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The Lib Dems didn't sink over their policy. They actually went from a 2015 low of 7% of the popular vote to about 11% of the popular vote in 2019. What undermined them was the constituency-by-constituency spoiler effect of first past the post, where votes for an actual remain party was deterred by the fear of taking away votes from their least disliked option between Labour and the Conservatives.

That's exactly why I ended up voting Corbyn (or Lewis - Norwich South) - not LD (didn't want to let in another economic deathwish Tory by accident given the last chance of avoiding or at least ameliorating the onrushing Johnson PM and Brexit disaster). He hardly represented my overall views but best option. Sadly the inevitable damage was done anyway as history shows.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Barbe bleu 827]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The Lib Dems didn't sink over their policy. They actually went from a 2015 low of 7% of the popular vote to about 11% of the popular vote in 2019. 

No didn't sink over that policy (hence the reference to their ship already being a submarine) but it was unable to raise the wreck.

 If the Lib dems couldn't make material ground when appealing to their target population with a decisive remain policy then Labour would have suffered massively if they tried the same with theirs.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The Lib Dems didn't sink over their policy. They actually went from a 2015 low of 7% of the popular vote to about 11% of the popular vote in 2019. What undermined them was the constituency-by-constituency spoiler effect of first past the post, where votes for an actual remain party was deterred by the fear of taking away votes from their least disliked option between Labour and the Conservatives.

KGs view underlines that people want to vote for parties that more closely agree with their personal beliefs and he's not alone in that. This is impossible with first past the post.

That's what always undermines them, to a greater or lesser extent 

1983 being a prime example of a greater extent 

[Herman 9,779]

Uncovering the murky world of right wing think tanks. Who are these people that end up with regular TV appearances, paper columns and who have now infiltrated into the heart of government. Well done Jolyon and colleagues.👏

 

[Aggy 755]

9 hours ago, horsefly said:

Hopefully people like you who simply lie about Labour Party policy and actually support far right-wing false narratives will be ignored (sensibly that's precisely what Starmer has done) Strange that the Labour Party has now been well over 20 points ahead of the Tories for months, but according to you are failing to connect with disillusioned voters. I guess that shows that people like me have been thinking rather hard about "why they [were] losing elections and what they can do to win people back".

 

9 hours ago, horsefly said:

Absurd as usual. The manifesto pledge was absolutely clear and nothing remotely like your pathetic re-written rubbish.

 

 

9 hours ago, horsefly said:

How absurd and profoundly undemocratic. The referendum was on the specific issue of EU membership. No political party which wished to be considered democratic could simply ignore that massive public vote. Labour's GE position of respecting the vote was absolutely in line with respecting democracy, as was the further commitment to offering a final binding vote on the renegotiated deal. 

 

11 hours ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! One of those independent MPs is a personal friend I shared a flat with at university. Neither she nor any of the Labour MPs who broke away from labour did so because of its Brexit policy. Strange you can't name one of them and provide a relevant quote. And yet again you display your inability to actually read what I said. I clearly demarcated Labour Party Brexit policy both during the referendum AND at the time of the 2019 general election. For once try and understand what was actually said than the made up drivel that formulates inside your head. Labour Party policy was ANTI-BREXIT both during the referendum and at the time of the 2019 GE.

Wow.

[Aggy 755]

11 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

If you're voting for a party whose views represent yours, find one. If it's not one of the two major ones and you're worried about your vote not counting then it may be a reflection of our poor, antiquated electoral models. If you, like me, think this current shower just have to be chucked out, then tactical voting may be the way forward (but by definition, tactical voting shows the failure of an electoral model).

As much as I think politicians are mendacious due to the job and go "top-down" far too often, I'm perfectly happy to see something more citizen-powered even if I'm not naturally going to know precisely what they want. Personally, I voted Remain, but I'm perfectly happy with referendum results that I disagree with provided that campaigning was fair and factual and that the outcome is a genuine reflection of the wish of the people.

Well the first bit factors in to a wider disillusionment with politics, not just a specific party. 

Of course there’ll always be some policies of all parties that you don’t necessarily agree with entirely, but brexit was not just a small policy. The fact that neither of the two main parties came out with what I wanted, on what was probably the biggest decision for the future of our country in my lifetime - a pledge to unwind brexit and a request for the public to vote them in to get a mandate to do so - left me looking elsewhere and realising it was pointless. I live in a very safe Labour constituency so not really much point voting if you don’t want to vote Labour.

On the second point, I have no issue with the referendum result being followed through per se. But our system works on the basis that if the party / thing you vote for doesn’t win, you accept it, suck it up and vote for something different next time.  When “next time” came around (ie first general election after brexit referendum), neither main party campaigned on a promise to do what they could to rewind brexit. Had they done so, and won the election on that promise, they would have had a mandate to do exactly that (and which would have been entirely democratic).

[edit: and to tie that in with what was originally being discussed, I don’t think there has been anywhere near enough from the party to get me excited about voting Labour again. I’d never vote Tory, but at the moment I don’t particularly feel any affinity towards Labour either, despite having previously been a life long Labour voter. Personally I’d like to see them come out with a bit more gumption and set out some policies that represent my beliefs. They’re playing it safe, and that might be enough to win the next election given how the tories seem keen to implode, but I‘d like more from them.]

Wider point on referendums - i think it’s Switzerland that has referendums on all sorts. Not sure how that works in practice and whether it is a very efficient way of getting things done. Personally, I think I’d rather see a move towards something slightly more PR-like in the voting system than an increase in the number of referendums we have.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Aggy

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Well the first bit factors in to a wider disillusionment with politics, not just a specific party. 

Of course there’ll always be some policies of all parties that you don’t necessarily agree with entirely, but brexit was not just a small policy. The fact that neither of the two main parties came out with what I wanted, on what was probably the biggest decision for the future of our country in my lifetime - a pledge to unwind brexit and a request for the public to vote them in to get a mandate to do so - left me looking elsewhere and realising it was pointless. I live in a very safe Labour constituency so not really much point voting if you don’t want to vote Labour.

On the second point, I have no issue with the referendum result being followed through per se. But our system works on the basis that if the party / thing you vote for doesn’t win, you accept it, suck it up and vote for something different next time.  When “next time” came around (ie first general election after brexit referendum), neither main party campaigned on a promise to do what they could to rewind brexit. Had they done so, and won the election on that promise, they would have had a mandate to do exactly that (and which would have been entirely democratic).

Wider point on referendums - i think it’s Switzerland that has referendums on all sorts. Not sure how that works in practice and whether it is a very efficient way of getting things done. Personally, I think I’d rather see a move towards something slightly more PR-like in the voting system than an increase in the number of referendums we have.

It is Switzerland that has regular referendums, but they also have PR. It is efficient, but a common complaint is that reform tends to be slow. That said, in Switzerland you can have referendums via popular initiative but also if a law is passed, so this does slow down reform and also mean that politicians work together more effectively as ultimately - it's pretty embarrassing if you pass a law then it goes to referendum as enough people signed in a short period of time after it became law.

Some would rightly argue that reform is slow. Others would also rightly argue that it means the political work done is more thorough, and I've said on this board that I'm very much a fan of how the Swiss handle their political affairs.

[horsefly 4,301]

2 hours ago, Aggy said:

 

 

 

Wow.

Still not a single answer. And still waiting for your list of Labour MPs you claim quit the party as a result of its Brexit policy. "Wow" indeed!

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

It is Switzerland that has regular referendums, but they also have PR. It is efficient, but a common complaint is that reform tends to be slow. That said, in Switzerland you can have referendums via popular initiative but also if a law is passed, so this does slow down reform and also mean that politicians work together more effectively as ultimately - it's pretty embarrassing if you pass a law then it goes to referendum as enough people signed in a short period of time after it became law.

Some would rightly argue that reform is slow. Others would also rightly argue that it means the political work done is more thorough, and I've said on this board that I'm very much a fan of how the Swiss handle their political affairs.

Interesting. Can referendums be held on anything or only on certain types of law? And I presume they have a written constitution? 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

6 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Interesting. Can referendums be held on anything or only on certain types of law? And I presume they have a written constitution? 

Referendums can be called via public initiative, so if 100,000 signatures are collected within 18 months, the measure in question goes to a referendum. That, as far as I am aware, is the most common way of calling them. There is also a less common one where when a law is passed into the statute books, if 50,000 signatures are collected within 90 days of that law passing, it goes to referendum again (facultative referendums). Lastly, there are mandatory ones when it comes to amending the constitution (mandatory referendums).

Obviously, Wiki articles are relatively basic, but plonked links in as a starting point for reference.

2022 Swiss referendums - Wikipedia
Popular initiative in Switzerland - Wikipedia
Optional referendum - Wikipedia
Mandatory referendum - Wikipedia