BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:39 PM

"The referendum was about whether or not the UK electorate wanted to remain in the EU or not...it was a vote for the electorate of the UK and for them alone..."

Yep. And just under 38% of the UK electorate voted to leave. Live with that. Just over one third of the electorate dragging us out of the EU. Wow. Democracy in action.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:46 PM

Steve Shaw wrote: Yep. And just under 38% of the UK electorate voted to leave. Live with that. Just over one third of the electorate dragging us out of the EU. Wow. Democracy in action.

100% of the UK electorate had the option to vote. 29% chose not to vote. What's the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 01:47 AM

The question I asked people's views about was Owen Smith's proposal for a SECOND referendum or using a general election to confirm whatever had been agreed. Just a reminder so as not to confuse this with referendum that has taken place, as some of the posts above seem to.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 05:09 AM

DMcG - 25 Aug 16 - 01:47 AM

Jean-Claude Juncker - "There will be no talks or informal discussions between the EU, or member states of the EU, and the UK until after the UK has invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty".

Taking that at face value that would mean that by the time all the details of the Brexit deal are known we will be on our way out of the EU and will not be in any position whatsoever to renegotiate the terms of our leaving, so what exactly having a referendum on the terms does I cannot imagine, so I agree with you it is a terrible idea - but generally the Labour Party do keep coming up with terrible ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM

Well why take him at face value? He's a politician! And they don't want us out, remember. Plenty of water to go under the bridge before Article 50 is invoked and you can bet your life that the water is already flowing. And the most terrible idea anyone has come up with was come up with by a Tory, who came up with the idea that we should have a referendum on a matter that we elect governments to deal with. And he did it for terrible reasons, namely that he was running scared of his own right wing and running even more scared that Farage would nick Tory seats. And the most terrible thing of all is that he was certain he would win. Now it's going to take an exceptionally terrible Labour government in power to come up with a more terrible idea than that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 06:49 AM

I agree, Steve. I see Owen's comments as being more about the leadership election toon and positioning for the next General Election than genuinely being about the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 06:54 AM

Don't know why the phone threw a 'toon' into that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:06 AM

Ah, Steve, you meant Juncker rather than Owen, I think. Apologies. But I stick to my remark that I think Owen is being tactical rather than straightforward.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:26 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:51 AM

100% of the UK electorate had the option to vote. 29% chose not to vote. What's the problem?

The vote didn't go his way and he's still sulking.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:26 AM

Steve Shaw - 25 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM

Referendum on EU membership was promised in 2010, unfortunately the Lib-Dems blocked it as part of the price to form a Coalition Government. The Conservatives stated that the previously promised referendum would be held if they won the 2015 election. I know that you are a Labour Party supporter and member and used to your chosen political party failing to honour it's election promises, but could you explain what is actually wrong with a political party living up to the promises made to those who voted for them?

No problem with the EU Referendum back in 1975 then Shaw?

1975 voter turn out 64.62% resulted in a YES for EU membership by 43% of the total electorate - 17,378,581 votes
2016 voter turn out 72.21% resulted in a NO to EU membership by 37.44% of the total electorate - 17,410,742 votes

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:56 AM

I've realised I mistated the situation as regarding voting rights for EU citizens resident in the UK. Citizens of two other EU countries have full voting rights - Malta and Cyprus.
So a Greek from Cyprus gets the vote, whereas a Greek from Greece doesn't.

It's really a bit of a dog's dinner of an electorate really. Someone who'd spent years fighting the British in Ireland or elsewhere gets the vote, a Ghurka from Nepal who'd been in the British army, doesn't, but Sikh from India who's done the same does.

But the Cypriot who can vote is still liable to be deported along with the Greek if the government's bid to use EU immigrants as bargaining counters comes unstuck...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 04:38 PM

I did not agree with the referendum in 1975 either. We elect politicians to get themselves knowledgable enough to make responsible decisions on our behalf. We do not elect politicians to be in dereliction of their duties in leaving the most crucial decisions to an electorate who are far less informed than they are and who are, in consequence, vulnerable to the kinds of lies peddled, for example, by both sides in the recent referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:46 PM

I think that's a pretty rosy view of elected MPs, Steve. In practice we elect MPs to do what the party decides, and in practice that means what the party leader decides.

Of course the Labour Party at present is playing by different rules, and that's not working out too well either, with the MPs standing out against the party members and the party leader they appointed.

Refererendums do have some merits in comparison. I've come to the conclusion they should run them on a best out of three basis. First time vote to make a provisional choice, second one a week or so later to confirm that, or to reject it. If it's rejected, a third one a couple of weeks later, to settle things.

That's the way we settle all kinds of things in real life when we toss a coin, and make it best of three. Always seems a lot fairer that way, which is why we do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:19 PM

Well we actually elect MPs to run the country. To run the schools, the health service, welfare, the police, housing, employment, the roads, taxation and emptying the bins. That sounds awfully busy to me and they have my respect when they do the job well. I don't expect any MP to be a specialist in any field at the outset but I do expect them to grow rapidly in competence in the policy area they've been landed with. That's why we don't elect people who wear chicken suits or who put cardboard boxes on their heads. They should be making all the big decisions based on their expertise and should not be passing them on to a far more ignorant electorate (good job you didn't have to pass a test about Europe in order to vote, eh?) We should never, ever have referendums. It's a job that the vast majority of people are not equipped to do. That is a dereliction of democracy, not "democracy in action."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 09:05 PM

Well MPs don't do those things do they? Most of them get done at a much more local level by people who are much more likely to know how. The Principle of Subsidiarity should apply, with matters being organised as locally as possible, and that's supposed to be the ruling principle in the EU.

In practice MPs are very limited in their ability to control the government. Much of what happens in Parliament is a kind of charade, with the decisions being made by a non-elected executive, basing it's power on a parliamentary majority dependant in practice on the votes of a tiny proportion of voters in relatively few constituencies, voting in a electoral system where very few of these members were actually the choice of amajority of those who voted, let alone the ppoplulation as a whole.

Worse systems exist. But it's quasi-democracy at best.

Referendums have serious problems too, even if in some ways they are closer to a democratic system. The problem with them is that the very size of the population puts rational debate and decision making out of reach. Mobs are not democratic.

A system that would overcome some of those problems and make for a more genuinely democratic process would be a kind of jury system, in which the temporary decision makers would have been selected at random to represent those who were not selected. They would have the responsibility of learning the facts, debating them, and deciding. Not a new idea - it goes back to the origins of democracy in Greece.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 02:17 AM

I would not go quite as far as Steve.   Referenda are generally an abdication of responsibility but occasionally they are appropriate. The one I think I is most defensible is the one on the Alternative vote. It would seem a bad idea if the government could just change the voting system at will. However, as Steve implied. it was hardly a glowing example of a well informed electorate taking a considered decision after suitable contemplation of the consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 05:23 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 25 Aug 16 - 09:05 PM

"Well MPs don't do those things do they? Most of them get done at a much more local level by people who are much more likely to know how."

Thank you for pointing that out to Mr Shaw - saved me the trouble.

The Principle of Subsidiarity should apply, with matters being organised as locally as possible, and that's supposed to be the ruling principle in the EU.

While it may well be what is supposed to be the ruling principle of the EU it is in fact the opposite of how they run the show, one of the very good reasons for getting out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 05:45 AM

I'd already replied to McGrath but my post didn't take. Of course MPs don't run everything directly. They delegate. But the ones who run departments are in charge. The manager of Bude Morrisons isn't a butcher but he is in charge of the the fact that meat sold in the shop must conform in quality, price and standard of display to company policy. It doesn't mean that he cuts the chops himself but the buck stops with him if sloppy butchery standards end up poisoning people or if blood drips all over the yoghurts in my trolley. The butcher in turn is accountable to him, and can't just swan off down the road with a wad of readies from the till to buy cheap beef at the farmers' market.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 06:09 AM

All referendums in a democratic country are abdications of responsibility. You hand over, every time, the decision-making to millions of people who are far less informed on the detail of issues and far less aware of potential consequences. It's like getting the schoolkids in Bude Junior to pick their new headteacher from a set of photos and just a little bad advice. In the system we have I want parliament to make the big decisions every time. If I don't like their decisions I'll vote for someone else next time in a GENERAL election. The alternative vote referendum was a cynical con to keep the gullible LibDems onside, certain to be thrown out. The efforts to inform the public as to what they were supposed to be voting about were pathetic. In the recent referendum there was a good deal of heat and very little light coming from both sides. Already we're facing a weakened currency and a probable recession, unless we keep on printing money, of course, and those are just the warning shots before anything to do with leaving has actually happened. Cor, who'd have thought it? Not little Englanders like Teribus, that's for sure. It was all going to be so easy, wasn't it? But now even Teribus is trying to soothe us by telling us that, don't worry, it'll be years before very much happens. In the words of Jim Royle, referendums my arse. Even the one in 1975.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 06:26 AM

I'm not saying the AV referendum was well done, or not a sop to the liberals. But it was a vote about how Parliament works rather than what it does, and it doesn't seem right that those sorts of decisions have no checks and balances. The fixed term parliament is another, somewhat milder, example where parliament changed how it worked without anyone but themselves being able to question it. But it could just have well said ten years between elections and there is nothing in the formalities to stop that. (We have had long parliaments in the past, after all)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 07:14 AM

Steve Shaw - 26 Aug 16 - 06:09 AM

"All referendums in a democratic country are abdications of responsibility."

And that is why we have so many of them isn't it Steve?

There have only been THREE UK refereda held. Others have been held in the constituent parts of the UK making a massive total of 11 since 1973 - none before then. Ever heard of something called perspective Shaw?

As to our "dire" economic state:

"whatever damage was done to consumer and business confidence in the UK in the days after the referendum result, was a short-term shock that has been quickly overcome.

The simple fact is that if consumers are buoyant, then business and investment should expand to serve their needs.

Moreover, the dire predictions from the International Monetary Fund, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Her Majesty's Treasury and others that a Brexit vote was the greatest threat to global economic recovery also has proved wrong.

Yes, all the pre-existing problems of stagnation in Europe, the dire state of Italian banks, a slowdown in China and geo-political turmoil are still putting the brakes on the expansion of the international economy. The threat of Brexit, however, has mysteriously vanished from the business lexicon."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 07:38 AM

What has my opinion on referendums in general got to do with "perspective?" You don't half talk twaddle at times.

As for the upshot of the leave vote, well there's plenty of time for more things to go wrong. Every little negative comment from European leaders that no, we're not getting a "special deal" unless we leave our borders open (which we already knew, but which was played down in the campaign) will knock a few more cents off the value of the pound. You were the cheerleader here for saying that the world would come falling at our feet offering favourable deals, that trading with the world would be a cinch (even though we don't actually make much to trade). Ain't happening, is it, and it's no use blaming the chilling world economy. We knew about all that yonks before we had xenophobic, manipulating dickheads like Johnson, Gove and Farage persuading us to leave. No irony in an extremely undemocratic campaign persuading us to leave the "undemocratic" EU, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 11:02 AM

The fact that central government might have some role to play in relation to the kind of things you mention. steve, does not imply it hould be seen as having ultimate control. Society as a whole has a role in relation to how children are treated in the family, and this involves a role for central government in laying down regulations and resources - but in no sense are families franchised branches of government.

The same in principle should be recognised in other contexts. In many ways the UK, and particularly England perhaps has gone too far in inappropriate centralising. The principle of subsidiiarity is very much marginalised, and it needs to be central in all things.

Insofar as the EU has been guilty of the same thing, that was the key criticism that it deserved. Brexit will just makes it harder to change this, both inside the truncated EU and in the UK, or whatever portions of that remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 11:28 AM

Well I agree with all that, but central government provides the dough. We do have a unfair council tax system, of course, to make us feel that we have a stake locally. I did like the old Liberals' notion of a local income tax. Generally, if you are allocating the money for health, education, security and policing and environmental matters, you have a considerable degree of control. Remember rate-capping, supposedly the brainchild of the party of small government? Maggie used it to control leftie councils. We are still living with the aftermath. And, last time I saw an estimate, over three-quarters of local government spending money comes from the Treasury.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 11:36 AM

I do take your point, DMcG. But if you put the question of how parliament should run to a referendum there is still no escaping the fact that a crucial question is being put by the far more informed to the far less informed. That is my problem with all referendums. Were that our politicos all honest Johns who could put all facets of issues simply and neutrally to the people. As we saw in the last referendum, which saw a squalid disgrace of a campaign on both sides, it's more likely that pigs will fly. Referendums my arse!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 12:09 PM

Central government certainly does not "provide the dough".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 12:36 PM

"You were the cheerleader here for saying that the world would come falling at our feet offering favourable deals, that trading with the world would be a cinch (even though we don't actually make much to trade)."

Don't think so Shaw, certainly not in those words. What I did say was that it would now be easier for the UK to enter into bilateral trade deals with countries throughout the world (Who have been our main trading partners for the last three years). Oh and I think we make a damned sight more than you obviously think we do.

Perspective Shaw - you yammering on as though referenda were a monthly occurrence in the UK - nationwide we have had three in the last 43 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 06:43 PM

Actually you could say three in the last 1000 years or more...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 07:44 PM

You, Kevin, could, you actually might, no idea of course why you would want to say that as the frequency of an event can only be established from when the first event occurred.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:46 AM

the frequency of an event can only be established from when the first event occurred

Not at all. The frequency of an event can be determined from any frame of reference that is relevant. It would be perfectly appropriate to talk about the frequency of occurrence of some event involving Scotland since the Act of Union, for example.

I think you are straying into maths and science again, Teribus, and last time I asked you didn't claim any specific background.   Formally the definition of frequency of an event is the number of occurrences in a given period, but there is no requirement to define the period in any specific way: frequency like that is always contextual.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 02:02 AM

Either way DMcG it still refutes the impression Shaw attempts to give that referenda are common - they are not, which was the point I was making - but then I think you appreciated that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 02:05 AM

Yes, I did appreciate that was the point you were making to Steve. I don't think it was the point you were making to Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:10 AM

Strange then DMcG that the example you give defines the start of your selected "given period" to an event as opposed to merely the date.

To say that we have had only three nation wide referenda in the last 1000 years is both meaningless and ridiculous for a whole host of reasons. But to say that since referenda have been used in the UK we have only had three nation wide referenda clearly shows the frequency they are adopted - seldom and only ever on issues where free choice is offered completely uncluttered by the demands of Party Politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:28 AM

I have made no comment on the frequency or otherwise of referendums. You two are floating up shit creek without the paddle that Teribus lost yonks ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:35 AM

*smile*, ok, Steve, I know you didn't, so we needn't continue this. But, as i am sure you are aware, my comments were actually about the subtext, not referendums.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 08:22 AM

You appear to have taken my remark as hostile, Teribus. Honestly it wasn't.

Actually there is rhetorical logic to using the longer time frame. There's probably a Greek term for t, there generally is. It serves to emphasise that the 43 years is not a period during which referendums were infrequent, but rather the reverse,

Local referendums about local issues are more readily justified.

The only countries where referendums on national issues are relatively common are Switzerland, where there have been over 600 since the mid 19th century (many on a canton level), and Ireland since the 1940s. These seem to work out well enough, with populations which have become accustomed to them. The English seem to panic at anything unfamiliar - hence the nonsense that was talked about how complicated Alternative Voting would have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 09:09 AM

Actually, I agree with Teribus. One thousand years ago we did not even have recognised government so how could we have held a referendum/   That's just daft.

There must be a reasonable time frame when discussing these matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 09:14 AM

Anyway, the deed is done, Brexit will be brought about.
Mr Farage has triumphed against all odds.....we all love an "outsider"...don't we?

Personally I think he deserves some recognition......Sir Nigel Farage has a nice ring to it. I'm sure when the EU finally implodes we shall all be down on our knees thanking him.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 09:29 AM

I'm sure we can all think of a few "outsiders" who were very successful for a time who we most definitely do not love.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 10:15 AM

Nigel Farage, Trumpist Arsehole has a much better ring to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 12:53 PM

"Anyway, the deed is done, Brexit will be brought about."
If that's the case, it's thanks to arseholes like you.
Farage's support for Fascist Trump puts this decision exactly where it belongs -
"Sir Nigel Farage has a nice ring to it. I'm sure when the EU finally implodes we shall all be down on our knees thanking him"
as does your deification of him put you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:14 PM

Hey, Ake!- here's a profile of Trump's people. I suspect Farage's are much the same.


The Dumbed Down Democracy
-Timothy Egan
Aug. 26, 2016


I give you Texas. A recent survey of Donald Trump supporters there found that 40 percent of them believe that Acorn will steal the upcoming election.

Acorn? News flash: That community-organizing group has been out of existence for six years. Acorn is gone, disbanded, dead. It can no more steal an election than Donald Trump can pole vault over his Mexican wall.

We know that at least 30 million American adults cannot read. But the current presidential election may yet prove that an even bigger part of the citizenry is politically illiterate — and functional. Which is to say, they will vote despite being unable to accept basic facts needed to process this American life.

Trump, who says he doesn't read much at all, is both a product of the epidemic of ignorance and a main producer of it. He can litter the campaign trail with hundreds of easily debunked falsehoods because conservative media has spent more than two decades tearing down the idea of objective fact.

"There's got to be a reckoning on all this," said Charlie Sykes, the influential conservative radio host, in a soul-searching interview with Business Insider. "We've created this monster."


Whole Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:23 PM

Meant to add
Nice to see things haven't changed
"Of course Jom's knee-jerk reaction and default position meant that he either"
Still relying on mistakes, even when they have been acknowledged and withdraw
Always amusing to see small minds growing even smaller!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 04:19 PM

My use of "outsider" was of course racing parlance Mr McGrath.

Greg... Mr Farage's intervention was to highlight the fact that Mr Trump may fracture the cracked US political system which you have all been complaining about, without that fracture you are damned to another couple of decades of failed foreign interventions and US warmongering.......Mrs Clinton has made it clear that she will return to a "Cold War" stance, but the circumstances are now very different, the US is no longer the worlds bent policeman......the power base has shifted.
Several years ago I said that if political change was to come, then it would have to come via the right (social conservative)socialists and centrists can mould that change in their own image, but it is imperative that the powerful social conservative movement takes the initiative. Mrs Clinton is a crook and a phoney....who appears to have in thrall people who should know better.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 04:38 PM

See Ake, now there's a classic example of your delusion.

Trump has stiffed creditors, screwed his contractors and workers, run a phony university to bilk money out of people, wrung as much money as he can out of properties and then declared "bankruptcy", refused to rent/sell to Persons of Color, has slimy criminals running his campaign, is a darling of the KKK and the "alt-right" arseholes, is a quintessential corporatist, cannot open his mouth without telling lies out of both sides of it, is a billionaire who pretends to be "a man of the people" &c...........

....and to you Clinton is a "crook" and a "phony".

You are evidently just about as intelligent and educated - or possibly a little less so - as the folks referenced, above, in Texas.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:23 PM

What are these last posts doing in a thread about Labour, when there's already a thread about Trump where they'd be at home?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:42 PM

Farage & Trump two peas in a pod, and apparently now buddies, Kevin. Be that as it may, if a MudElf wants to swap them to the other thread, fine by me!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:57 PM

...or delete 'em. Also fine by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 06:22 PM

Yeah, it would be nice if someone DID delete Trump and Farage!

I'll get me coat...