Witney by-election

[Qwerty133]

That isn't very democratic. It's a bit like holding an axe above someone's wrist and saying it's either that or chopping off their head.

It's hilarious how anti-democratic those who scream about democracy when it suits them really are. It's almost like you're worried that a majority doesn't actually support whichever strain of Brexit you personally believe in.

(sorry BB21 I know this is off topic...)
No deal would ever reach 50% of the population as the 48% that voted remain would only need the support of less than 4% of brexit voters to get to 50%, and there will always be those who think that whatever the deal is isn't hard enough unless its a complete ban on immigration and embargoes on all EU made goods.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think the LibDems are seriously expecting to be in government but the 48% who voted to remain is bigger than the winning party's vote share in any election of recent history, so well worth targeting. Especially so as it is fully in line with LibDem policy, and no other party seems to be willing to stand up for this group at the moment.

Look at what happened with the SNP in Scotland. Something like 45% voted for an independent Scotland but David Cameron had promised more devolution for Scotland if they remain in the UK but was unclear on the details of devolution. The SNP went in to the last election promising Scots they are the party that would ensure that devolution would happen and it worked, helped by Labour and the Lib Dems losing support in Scotland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I find the whole 'not fielding candidates out of respect' policy concerning. It undermines the principle of democracy. I voted last night in the Batley vote, but what choice did I have? Labour, racists or lunatics? Paradoxically though, it was the biggest selection of candidates I've ever seen, filling a whole page of A4, sadly not many were seriously electable and I've seen zero campaigning.

I was still disappointed that the BNP managed to come second with 500 votes.

It would have been a very bitter victory for the Conservatives, Lib Dems or UKIP to win the seat in the circumstances and 1 seat in a by-election can't affect which party remains in control.

However, if Labour had put a Dianne Abbott type person forward as their candidate it would have seemed undemocratic to not have viable alternatives on the ballot paper.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I honestly find it hard to place the Lib-Dems on the spectrum. They're definitely left-of-centre, but their policies seem to vary between "Labour-lite", and quite left (e.g. anti-war).

Going in to the 2010 and 2015 elections they tried to sell themselves as the middle ground party who could prevent the Conservatives implementing very right wing policies or Labour implementing very left wing policies. However, in 2001 and 2005 they came across as being positioned more to the left than Labour.

With some policies it's hard to say where they fit in on the spectrum. For instance, when Labour introduced university tuition fees they sold it in as a left wing idea in that without them binmen are funding the future doctors and they also created an exemption for children from low income families. However, other groups and parties which are more left wing than New Labour were have called for tuition fees to be scrapped as it puts off some children who aren't from high income families from going to university.

 

[TheKnightWho]

(sorry BB21 I know this is off topic...)
No deal would ever reach 50% of the population as the 48% that voted remain would only need the support of less than 4% of brexit voters to get to 50%, and there will always be those who think that whatever the deal is isn't hard enough unless its a complete ban on immigration and embargoes on all EU made goods.

A lot of the 48% would be happy with as soft a deal as possible whilst retaining the mandate for leaving, which I suspect 4% extra would also settle for. Democracy is about compromise, and Leavers need to accept that, unlike in FPTP, getting the most votes doesn't make it democratic to then totally ignore your opposition and go for the most extreme version of your own side's view.

It was a very close referendum, and the deal should reflect that.

 

[Senex]

It was a very close referendum, and the deal should reflect that.

It should, but why should we expect that it will? All the talk from the government side is as if the 48% just didn't exist. And unfortunately that is the way the British adversarial system works : winner takes all and does what he likes, however narrow his majority is or however defective the mandate is. The two main parties work on the basis, "It's my turn now, so I'll do what I like" when in government, or "I've lost this time, but I'll get my chance again before too long and then I can do what I like".

As for Witney, I wonder how many of the Tories who stayed at home were Remainers making a protest. If you are a Remainer and on the political Right (as for the most part I am), who do you vote for now when you are totally turned off May's government by the Hard Brexit stance, UKIP is obviously out of the question, and you couldn't conceive under any circumstances of voting for Corbyn's Labour?

 

[backontrack]

Look at what happened with the SNP in Scotland. Something like 45% voted for an independent Scotland but David Cameron had promised more devolution for Scotland if they remain in the UK but was unclear on the details of devolution. The SNP went in to the last election promising Scots they are the party that would ensure that devolution would happen and it worked, helped by Labour and the Lib Dems losing support in Scotland.

Yes, but that was a blatant lie. The Tories did a complete u-turn on Devo-Max once the referendum result came in.

 

[northwichcat]

As for Witney, I wonder how many of the Tories who stayed at home were Remainers making a protest. If you are a Remainer and on the political Right (as for the most part I am), who do you vote for now when you are totally turned off May's government by the Hard Brexit stance, UKIP is obviously out of the question, and you couldn't conceive under any circumstances of voting for Corbyn's Labour?

There were also 3 Independents - none of which got many votes, a National Health Action candidate plus the joke candidates.

 

[bramling]

As for Witney, I wonder how many of the Tories who stayed at home were Remainers making a protest. If you are a Remainer and on the political Right (as for the most part I am), who do you vote for now when you are totally turned off May's government by the Hard Brexit stance, UKIP is obviously out of the question, and you couldn't conceive under any circumstances of voting for Corbyn's Labour?

The above all makes sense, and may well be spot on, however:

1) This is a by-election and a safe seat. People may well be happy to vote Lib-Dem in these circumstances, but would not do so at a general election - especially in a more marginal seat.

2) The "disaffected Brexit" effect (if that's what it is) may well have worn off by the next general election. Also Witney could perhaps be more expected to exhibit this effect due to its proximity to Oxford and also its former MP being David Cameron.

Part of the rationale for holding a referendum is to disentangle an issue from partisan politics. It's unfortunate the EU issue is starting to become re-tangled.

 

[furnessvale]

That isn't very democratic. It's a bit like holding an axe above someone's wrist and saying it's either that or chopping off their head.

Only if you consider any version of Brexit to be equally bad, which we all know you do.

 

[radamfi]

Only if you consider any version of Brexit to be equally bad, which we all know you do.

Eh? If we have to have a Brexit, I would guess that pretty much all the Remainers on here would rather have a soft Brexit rather than a hard one. I would be surprised if there was a Remainer on here that thought that they were both equally bad.

 

[AlterEgo]

Only if you consider any version of Brexit to be equally bad, which we all know you do.

You think cutting off a hand is as bad as cutting off a head?

 

[furnessvale]

You think cutting off a hand is as bad as cutting off a head?

Ask The Knight Who, not me. He is the one who introduced that analogy.

I was simply making the point earlier that the nation has voted to leave. Any subsequent vote has to reflect that reality by giving a choice to leave by one way or another, not by allowing a rerun of whether we leave or not.

 

[radamfi]

Ask The Knight Who, not me. He is the one who introduced that analogy.

I was simply making the point earlier that the nation has voted to leave. Any subsequent vote has to reflect that reality by giving a choice to leave by one way or another, not by allowing a rerun of whether we leave or not.

But his analogy (in the context of his reply to you) essentially could define "cutting off hand" as "a very hard Brexit almost as bad as adopting WTO rules" and "cutting off head" as "WTO rules". By comparison, a "soft Brexit" might be a little bruise.

 

[furnessvale]

But his analogy (in the context of his reply to you) essentially could define "cutting off hand" as "a very hard Brexit almost as bad as adopting WTO rules" and "cutting off head" as "WTO rules". By comparison, a "soft Brexit" might be a little bruise.

Others may see soft Brexit as effectively staying in the EU but hard Brexit as getting off that sinking ship before it goes down with all hands!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Ask The Knight Who, not me. He is the one who introduced that analogy.

I was simply making the point earlier that the nation has voted to leave. Any subsequent vote has to reflect that reality by giving a choice to leave by one way or another, not by allowing a rerun of whether we leave or not.

You haven't jusrified your "this deal or no deal" position with this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Others may see soft Brexit as effectively staying in the EU but hard Brexit as getting off that sinking ship before it goes down with all hands!

The importance is a democratic compromise; not yours or my personal views.

 

[edwin_m]

Ask The Knight Who, not me. He is the one who introduced that analogy.

I was simply making the point earlier that the nation has voted to leave. Any subsequent vote has to reflect that reality by giving a choice to leave by one way or another, not by allowing a rerun of whether we leave or not.

Leaving is currently no more than an idea and nobody knows what changes it will entail in practice. Once this becomes clear it is quite possible that some who voted to leave will not agree with some aspects of what is proposed. On the other hand the remain option supported by 48% was clearly defined in detail.

So by all means have a vote between different leave options if more than one emerges, but for democratic legitimacy it is necessary for the people to choose between a fully developed leave option and the remain option. If you believe the overwhelming desire of the population is to leave under whatever terms then this should cause you no concern.

 

[furnessvale]

Leaving is currently no more than an idea and nobody knows what changes it will entail in practice. Once this becomes clear it is quite possible that some who voted to leave will not agree with some aspects of what is proposed. On the other hand the remain option supported by 48% was clearly defined in detail.

So by all means have a vote between different leave options if more than one emerges, but for democratic legitimacy it is necessary for the people to choose between a fully developed leave option and the remain option. If you believe the overwhelming desire of the population is to leave under whatever terms then this should cause you no concern.

I don't recollect the leave campaign being offered the opportunity of a rerun when the inevitable extension of EU powers comes along, had we voted to remain.

Please don't mention the Cameron opt out. We all know that was worth less than Chamberlain's signed note in 1938.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't recollect the leave campaign being offered the opportunity of a rerun when the inevitable extension of EU powers comes along, had we voted to remain.

Nigel Farage had made it very clear that, in the event of a narrow remain victory, the leave campaign would be likely to campaign for another referendum. I think it's fairly obvious that in the hypothetical case that EU powers were extended, that would give such a campaign a significant boost, making it quite plausible that a 2nd referendum might happen (although obviously, the Government had not said anything on the matter).

 

[Howardh]

It should, but why should we expect that it will? All the talk from the government side is as if the 48% just didn't exist. And unfortunately that is the way the British adversarial system works : winner takes all and does what he likes, however narrow his majority is or however defective the mandate is. The two main parties work on the basis, "It's my turn now, so I'll do what I like" when in government, or "I've lost this time, but I'll get my chance again before too long and then I can do what I like".

The referendum was like a MOT test - the result covers that day, that point in time alone. It's unfortunate that it's a result cast in stone, which is problematical for any government as time goes by, that 48% may become 58% (or 38%, of course!!) and the government's policies become to be against the will of the people THEN.

May has to be careful if the public mood changes and more begin to wish to remain - as they could well take it out of them at the next election.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I don't recollect the leave campaign being offered the opportunity of a rerun when the inevitable extension of EU powers comes along, had we voted to remain.

Please don't mention the Cameron opt out. We all know that was worth less than Chamberlain's signed note in 1938.

So in your view anything other than WTO rules is tantamount to remaining?

You do realise that bears no semblance to reality, right?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I find the whole 'not fielding candidates out of respect' policy concerning. It undermines the principle of democracy.

I don't see how you come to this conclusion, given that the election only took place because the sitting MP was murdered. I think in this situation it was appropriate. Probably more so than when David Davis resigned his seat in 2008 for a political stunt, with all the other major political parties refusing to play the game.

I honestly find it hard to place the Lib-Dems on the spectrum. They're definitely left-of-centre, but their policies seem to vary between "Labour-lite", and quite left (e.g. anti-war).

I don't think they are left-of-centre, I think they are classical liberal in the style of JS Mill and Jeremy Bentham. People generally associate authoritarianism with the right-wing, not the left, but the Lib Dems are not economically left-wing at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't recollect the leave campaign being offered the opportunity of a rerun when the inevitable extension of EU powers comes along, had we voted to remain.

I think if there had been a 2% swing the other way, and Remain had won, then a) Farage would have persisted in calling for a rerun (before they won, Leave were making Trumpian remarks about voter fraud; funnily enough they didn't think their win was fraudulent) and b) there would have had to have been a further referendum if Remain had decided to pursue Hard Remain (Schengen, Euro, etc).

Two-thirds of people in the UK did not vote to Leave. Those pushing for Hard Brexit ought to do well to remember that. And FWIW I think most voting Leave did want Hard Brexit.

 

[northwichcat]

Two-thirds of people in the UK did not vote to Leave. Those pushing for Hard Brexit ought to do well to remember that. And FWIW I think most voting Leave did want Hard Brexit.

While I supported Remain I don't think you can count people who didn't bother to vote, it's one thing saying that after a General Election when you have a FPTP system and safe seats but another when it's a countrywide two option referendum.

However, it is worth remembering it'll be 2019 before Brexit is implemented and by then some people who voted will have died and people who were 15 at the time of the referendum will be old enough to vote, so given the result was close that might be enough to swing it in the opposite direction!

 

[Tetchytyke]

While I supported Remain I don't think you can count people who didn't bother to vote

I'm not saying they're Remain voters, I'm saying they didn't vote to Leave. Their opinion- should they hold one- is unknown.

Only 35% of people in the UK voted to Leave. The rest did not.

 

[furnessvale]

While I supported Remain I don't think you can count people who didn't bother to vote, it's one thing saying that after a General Election when you have a FPTP system and safe seats but another when it's a countrywide two option referendum.

However, it is worth remembering it'll be 2019 before Brexit is implemented and by then some people who voted will have died and people who were 15 at the time of the referendum will be old enough to vote, so given the result was close that might be enough to swing it in the opposite direction!

Or perhaps enough people will have witnessed the actions of the EU during negotiations to realise that we would be better away from this corrupt self serving organisation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Or perhaps enough people will have witnessed the actions of the EU during negotiations

We've started negotiations?

News to me.

Although your ex-wife not letting you stay in her house rent-free whilst you see the 21-year-old lapdancer doesn't sound the most unreasonable negotiation position I've ever heard, if I'm honest...

 

[northwichcat]

Or perhaps enough people will have witnessed the actions of the EU during negotiations to realise that we would be better away from this corrupt self serving organisation.

People can change their minds either way. Some people were gullible enough to believe that leaving the EU would mean £350m for the NHS - now they realise that was a lie do they really still want Brexit?

 

[furnessvale]

We've started negotiations?

News to me.

Perhaps if you read the whole sentence you would see 2019 mentioned?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Or perhaps enough people will have witnessed the actions of the EU during negotiations to realise that we would be better away from this corrupt self serving organisation.

Evidence that the EU is significantly corrupt?

(I'm fairly sure you don't have any evidence, and that's just one of the many wild and untrue accusations that Brexiters like to make. This is your chance to prove me wrong)

 

[furnessvale]

People can change their minds either way. Some people were gullible enough to believe that leaving the EU would mean £350m for the NHS - now they realise that was a lie do they really still want Brexit?

Many others were also gullible enough to believe that a vote to remain was a vote for the status quo.

Nothing could be further from the truth as the EU evolves into the United States of Europe. True we have an opt out, cue much sniggering, but the more we opt out the less point there is in remaining in the first place.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Nothing could be further from the truth as the EU evolves into the United States of Europe.

It does?

Again, news to me.

You should just call it the EUSSR and get it over with. You know you want to.

 

[furnessvale]

It does?

Again, news to me.

You should just call it the EUSSR and get it over with. You know you want to.

Again? Your first news was due to your misreading of a sentence written by others.

EUSSR? Now that has a certain ring to it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Evidence that the EU is significantly corrupt?

(I'm fairly sure you don't have any evidence, and that's just one of the many wild and untrue accusations that Brexiters like to make. This is your chance to prove me wrong)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-nearly-800bn-a-year-says-study-a6944436.html

I didn't bother using a right wing newspaper as that would have been subject to the usual jibes.