Damn those pesky kids - if they hadn't been scurrilously encouraged to

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

exercise their right to vote we could have continued hoarding our unfairly accrued wealth and contriving to pay little or no tax, and continued exploiting the workforce with zero hours contracts on a pitiful minimum wage - damn them!

[World's End Stella]

exercise their right to vote we could have continued hoarding our unfairly accrued wealth and contriving to pay little or no tax, and continued exploiting the workforce with zero hours contracts on a pitiful minimum wage - damn them!

I don't mind them coming out in droves because of the Corbyn offerings, we are allowed to be greedy at times and that is democracy, after all.

It's the fact that they couldn't be bothered to do the same last summer that irritates me. It shows an astonishing lack of foresight. I also find myself wondering what % of these same students have parents who would be hammered by Corbyn's tax changes and whether or not they've considered that and the impact it will ultimately have on them.

Again, a lack for foresight. Or maybe they're all just thick nowadays. :sherlock:

[IUFG]

Again, a lack for foresight. Or maybe they're all just thick nowadays. :sherlock:

Its very easy to be a socialist when you don't actually earn any monies for yourself, innit.

In short, they're all thick.

[World's End Stella]

Its very easy to be a socialist when you don't actually earn any monies for yourself, innit.

In short, they're all thick.

When I was a student I was more strongly conservative than I am now and was fully aware of the need to be fiscally responsible. :shrug:

Age has softened me, IUFG. :-)

[eastgermanautos]

exercise their right to vote we could have continued hoarding our unfairly accrued wealth and contriving to pay little or no tax, and continued exploiting the workforce with zero hours contracts on a pitiful minimum wage - damn them!

Well spoken Ray!

[redgunamo]

Maybe this is the kids' revenge.

It probably doesn't make too much difference anyway as nowadays there's clearly more than enough money and opportunities to go around.



I don't mind them coming out in droves because of the Corbyn offerings, we are allowed to be greedy at times and that is democracy, after all.

It's the fact that they couldn't be bothered to do the same last summer that irritates me. It shows an astonishing lack of foresight. I also find myself wondering what % of these same students have parents who would be hammered by Corbyn's tax changes and whether or not they've considered that and the impact it will ultimately have on them.

Again, a lack for foresight. Or maybe they're all just thick nowadays. :sherlock:

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

Again, a lack for foresight. Or maybe they're all just thick nowadays. :sherlock:

You appear to be morphing into Berni. Any whose opinion detracts from your own must be thick.

[redgunamo]

Its very easy to be a socialist when you don't actually earn any monies for yourself, innit.

In short, they're all thick.

Not thick, I reckon. It's just life as it's been presented to them.

[Pokster]

exercise their right to vote we could have continued hoarding our unfairly accrued wealth and contriving to pay little or no tax, and continued exploiting the workforce with zero hours contracts on a pitiful minimum wage - damn them!

how dare they actuaaly vote for the party who had the best policies..... hence why TM is now doing a massive uturn over all the ****e ones they wanted people to vote for

[IUFG]

... who had the best policies

show your workings, p.

[Pokster]

show your workings, p.

It's all a matter of opinions isn't it... imho the policies Labour came up with did more to help parents with young kids, Uni students and the old and disabled. the fact the Tory party look like ditching a lot of policies makes you think they weren't good in the first place

[World's End Stella]

show your workings, p.

You mean you don't support the nationalization of the railroads, the postal service and the energy industry, IUFG? Don't you remember the nirvana that was the 70s when those industries provided a superb service at virtually no cost to the taxpayer? I bet you also think that high tax/spend plans might have a flaw especially when they don't add up.

You fool. ;-)

[Ash]

Its very easy to be a socialist when you don't actually earn any monies for yourself, innit.

In short, they're all thick.

Hmmm. Labour won Kensington. The richest constituency in the UK.

EDIT: Of course Labour voters are damned whether they have money or not.

[redgunamo]

Hmmm. Labour won Kensington.

Did they, by God?!

Urgent new hobby alert for whoever the conservative candidate was then. And the party leader too, just to be on the safe side.

[World's End Stella]

Hmmm. Labour won Kensington. The richest constituency in the UK.

EDIT: Of course Labour voters are damned whether they have money or not.

London innit. They voted 60% to Remain and now they're getting their own back. That and the students in London jumping all over Comrade Corbyn's handouts pretty much explains the entire election.

But on the upside, here comes a nice, soft Brexit. :cloud9:

[Ash]

London innit. They voted 60% to Remain and now they're getting their own back. That and the students in London jumping all over Comrade Corbyn's handouts pretty much explains the entire election.

But on the upside, here comes a nice, soft Brexit. :cloud9:

If they wanted to vote remain they should have voted Lib Dem.

Soft Brexit = Fake Brexit.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

If they wanted to vote remain they should have voted Lib Dem.

Soft Brexit = Fake Brexit.

♫♪.ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı.♫♪

[World's End Stella]

If they wanted to vote remain they should have voted Lib Dem.

Soft Brexit = Fake Brexit.

Yes, I agree but that's exactly what is about to happen, I think.

The smug Leavers are about to be seriously disappointed. I'd be surprised if it looks very different from Remain, really. But that's modern politics, it's all about the here and now.

[Ash]

Yes, I agree but that's exactly what is about to happen, I think.

The smug Leavers are about to be seriously disappointed. I'd be surprised if it looks very different from Remain, really. But that's modern politics, it's all about the here and now.

Well, I don't consider myself as smug but I am more than disappointed. The election campaigns were fought on the basis of 'Brexit is settled', and saw UKIP's vote collapse to nothing, from a fairly substantial national share, and to the benefit of the two main parties. Over 80% of people voted for parties who said they would leave the single market.

Now the election is over, May's battering is being used as an excuse for the dominant political and media classes to do what they've wanted ever since the referendum - to stop Brexit. The electorate at large hasn't voted against Brexit in this election (even though some people will have done), they have voted on all the basis of various reasons.

If this scenario plays out as we imagine, the majority who voted Leave will have been betrayed. UKIP will be back in five years when Britain is still subject to undemocratic and unnacountable external rule, still has no control over its borders, and still subsidises other countries from which it gets little (except cheap labour which is good for the wealthy and bad for the less wealthy).

[Peter]

I don't mind them coming out in droves because of the Corbyn offerings, we are allowed to be greedy at times and that is democracy, after all.

It's the fact that they couldn't be bothered to do the same last summer that irritates me. It shows an astonishing lack of foresight. I also find myself wondering what % of these same students have parents who would be hammered by Corbyn's tax changes and whether or not they've considered that and the impact it will ultimately have on them.

Again, a lack for foresight. Or maybe they're all just thick nowadays. :sherlock:

Funnily enough I put the same question to someone the other day but in reverse. He was whining about losing £200 a month under Corbyn's tax hike and that he couldn't afford it as his kids were off to university soon. I pointed out that a Corbyn government would save his kids 27 grand each over their studies. Silence....

He was wrong about the tax anyway. He earns 82 grand, the rise would have cost him pennies. So, selfish and thick, as you said.

[Peter]

Well, I don't consider myself as smug but I am more than disappointed. The election campaigns were fought on the basis of 'Brexit is settled', and saw UKIP's vote collapse to nothing, from a fairly substantial national share, and to the benefit of the two main parties. Over 80% of people voted for parties who said they would leave the single market.

Now the election is over, May's battering is being used as an excuse for the dominant political and media classes to do what they've wanted ever since the referendum - to stop Brexit. The electorate at large hasn't voted against Brexit in this election (even though some people will have done), they have voted on all the basis of various reasons.

If this scenario plays out as we imagine, the majority who voted Leave will have been betrayed. UKIP will be back in five years when Britain is still subject to undemocratic and unnacountable external rule, still has no control over its borders, and still subsidises other countries from which it gets little (except cheap labour which is good for the wealthy and bad for the less wealthy).

The argument has to be that the will of the people was expressed at the referendum. If that was true before the election it is just as true now. I would also agree that any Brexit that involves remaining in the single market and retaining freedom of movement is an absolute betrayal of that vote. Nobody in their right can honestly think that those voting leave were voting for that. Its a joke.

There are more complex, longer term issues in there around cheap labour, the drift of skills and capital towards the areas of economic strength within the EU and away from those areas requiring development. The potential for widening an east-west divide within the Union that already exists.....

I have already heard plenty of references to a 'jobs Brexit', an 'economic Brexit', a 'Brexit that works for Britain'. As you say , this is politician-speak for the political establishment devising a brexit that works for them.

[World's End Stella]

The argument has to be that the will of the people was expressed at the referendum. If that was true before the election it is just as true now. I would also agree that any Brexit that involves remaining in the single market and retaining freedom of movement is an absolute betrayal of that vote. Nobody in their right can honestly think that those voting leave were voting for that. Its a joke.

There are more complex, longer term issues in there around cheap labour, the drift of skills and capital towards the areas of economic strength within the EU and away from those areas requiring development. The potential for widening an east-west divide within the Union that already exists.....

I have already heard plenty of references to a 'jobs Brexit', an 'economic Brexit', a 'Brexit that works for Britain'. As you say , this is politician-speak for the political establishment devising a brexit that works for them.

Yes, it will absolutely be a betrayal, but the reality is that whether or not Brexit is good in the long run, it will clearly be bad in the short run. And many politicians will be thinking 'if we go hard Brexit the economy will die and there goes my seat. If I go soft Brexit the economy should be just fine and I can argue my way out of the betrayal argument'.

Brexit may ultimately be better for the country but it clearly has a far lower downside in the short run and as I said, it's all about the here and now nowadays. As we've just seen with the student vote.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

I think a betrayal of the referendum would make us no better than the Irish who simply hold referenda repeatedly til they get the answer they want, but it may be worth it just to see every blood vessel in Berni's head erupt in a sort of hyper aneurysm.

[Ash]

I think a betrayal of the referendum would make us no better than the Irish who simply hold referenda repeatedly til they get the answer they want, but it may be worth it just to see every blood vessel in Berni's head erupt in a sort of hyper aneurysm.

I believe it was the EU that demanded that the Irish keep voting until they delivered the required result. And the EU have ignored referendums in France, Netherlands and Greece because they didn't like the outcome. This contempt for democracy is one of the reasons that some of us voted Leave in the first place. That the British, pro-EU elite are behaving in the same way comes as no surprise.

[taxman10]

All tax changes are good for me!

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The argument has to be that the will of the people was expressed at the referendum. If that was true before the election it is just as true now. I would also agree that any Brexit that involves remaining in the single market and retaining freedom of movement is an absolute betrayal of that vote. Nobody in their right can honestly think that those voting leave were voting for that. Its a joke.

There are more complex, longer term issues in there around cheap labour, the drift of skills and capital towards the areas of economic strength within the EU and away from those areas requiring development. The potential for widening an east-west divide within the Union that already exists.....

I have already heard plenty of references to a 'jobs Brexit', an 'economic Brexit', a 'Brexit that works for Britain'. As you say , this is politician-speak for the political establishment devising a brexit that works for them.

1. No parliament can bind its successor. Otherwise the 1975 vote would have been good for all time and the Jocks wouldn't have been talking about an IndyRef 2. Which, btw, has been derailed by the general election. People voted to say there was no longer a majority in Jockland for the party wanting independence.

Likewise, the two parties promising a hard Brexit got only 44.2% of the vote (and a minority of seats.) So over 55% voted against a hard Brexit and there is no majority in the HoC for such.

2. And no, a softer Brexit would not be a betrayal of the vote. Only of some people's interpretation. Were people asked if they wanted to stop free movement? No. Or leave the EEA? Or the SM or CU? Or if they had a problem with rejoining EFTA? No, no, no and no.

Basically, if they had wanted those questions asked, they should have done so at the time. They didn't.

And if the voters had wanted to answer those questions themselves, they should have done so this month, when they had a chance to vote for the two parties promising a hard Brexit. They didn't.

They didn't. The referendum didn't ask, ad therefore didn't answer, these questions. The GE did. And a majority of voters and of MPs said the answer to a hard Brexit is no.

If the voters don't like this parliament giving a soft Brexit, they can vote for a hard Brexit party next time. {Just like if the Jocks do want IndyRef 2, they can all go and vote SNP.}

We can join EFTA, which wasn't precluded by the referendum, and then voters can vote for a party promising to leave that or promising a referendum on leaving.

Sorry, but if you believe in GB's parliamentary democracy, then you have to accept that the answer to questions given in a recent GE trump questions not asked in a prior referendum.

Hopefully we can rejoin EFTA, wait for the OAP Brexiters to die and then rejoin the EU. ;)

[Peter]

1. No parliament can bind its successor. Otherwise the 1975 vote would have been good for all time and the Jocks wouldn't have been talking about an IndyRef 2. Which, btw, has been derailed by the general election. People voted to say there was no longer a majority in Jockland for the party wanting independence.

Likewise, the two parties promising a hard Brexit got only 44.2% of the vote (and a minority of seats.) So over 55% voted against a hard Brexit and there is no majority in the HoC for such.

2. And no, a softer Brexit would not be a betrayal of the vote. Only of some people's interpretation. Were people asked if they wanted to stop free movement? No. Or leave the EEA? Or the SM or CU? Or if they had a problem with rejoining EFTA? No, no, no and no.

Basically, if they had wanted those questions asked, they should have done so at the time. They didn't.

And if the voters had wanted to answer those questions themselves, they should have done so this month, when they had a chance to vote for the two parties promising a hard Brexit. They didn't.

They didn't. The referendum didn't ask, ad therefore didn't answer, these questions. The GE did. And a majority of voters and of MPs said the answer to a hard Brexit is no.

If the voters don't like this parliament giving a soft Brexit, they can vote for a hard Brexit party next time. {Just like if the Jocks do want IndyRef 2, they can all go and vote SNP.}

We can join EFTA, which wasn't precluded by the referendum, and then voters can vote for a party promising to leave that or promising a referendum on leaving.

Sorry, but if you believe in GB's parliamentary democracy, then you have to accept that the answer to questions given in a recent GE trump questions not asked in a prior referendum.

Hopefully we can rejoin EFTA, wait for the OAP Brexiters to die and then rejoin the EU. ;)

Errr.. the only slight problem here is that you insist on being incredibly precise about what leavers voted for in the referendum while at the same time extrapolating all kinds of desires and motives towards Brexit from an election campaign that wasn’t about that.

The electorate believed that the Brexit issue was resolved, largely because both major parties committed to the referendum result. You can see this clearly by the fact that the significant UKIP vote collapsed and drifted back to the two main parties, both promising to respect the referendum outcome.

Trying to suggest that this is in any way a public mandate for rethinking Brexit is absurd. If you want to overturn the referendum there are only two acceptable, democratic ways of doing it. Either the public clearly votes for a party promising to overturn at an election (to borrow your thinking, they had the chance to do this and didn’t take it) or you hold a second referendum (which neither of the main parties proposed).

This is why you should never hold referenda- too confusing for everyone

[Ash]

1. No parliament can bind its successor. Otherwise the 1975 vote would have been good for all time and the Jocks wouldn't have been talking about an IndyRef 2. Which, btw, has been derailed by the general election. People voted to say there was no longer a majority in Jockland for the party wanting independence.

Likewise, the two parties promising a hard Brexit got only 44.2% of the vote (and a minority of seats.) So over 55% voted against a hard Brexit and there is no majority in the HoC for such.

2. And no, a softer Brexit would not be a betrayal of the vote. Only of some people's interpretation. Were people asked if they wanted to stop free movement? No. Or leave the EEA? Or the SM or CU? Or if they had a problem with rejoining EFTA? No, no, no and no.

Basically, if they had wanted those questions asked, they should have done so at the time. They didn't.

And if the voters had wanted to answer those questions themselves, they should have done so this month, when they had a chance to vote for the two parties promising a hard Brexit. They didn't.

They didn't. The referendum didn't ask, ad therefore didn't answer, these questions. The GE did. And a majority of voters and of MPs said the answer to a hard Brexit is no.

If the voters don't like this parliament giving a soft Brexit, they can vote for a hard Brexit party next time. {Just like if the Jocks do want IndyRef 2, they can all go and vote SNP.}

We can join EFTA, which wasn't precluded by the referendum, and then voters can vote for a party promising to leave that or promising a referendum on leaving.

Sorry, but if you believe in GB's parliamentary democracy, then you have to accept that the answer to questions given in a recent GE trump questions not asked in a prior referendum.

Hopefully we can rejoin EFTA, wait for the OAP Brexiters to die and then rejoin the EU. ;)

If I was the sort of poster to go in for ad hom abuse I would call you a tedious, ageist, soap-dodging windbag.

Your arguments are rubbish, btw. The labour leadership have said they would leave the single market. The election was not fought on Brexit, but on lots of issues, and your pretending that it was is weasilly *******s.

[World's End Stella]

I believe it was the EU that demanded that the Irish keep voting until they delivered the required result. And the EU have ignored referendums in France, Netherlands and Greece because they didn't like the outcome. This contempt for democracy is one of the reasons that some of us voted Leave in the first place. That the British, pro-EU elite are behaving in the same way comes as no surprise.

If you wanted a hard Brexit you should have voted Tory. :shrug:

It wouldn't have guaranteed it, but it would have been far more likely than it is now.

[Ash]

If you wanted a hard Brexit you should have voted Tory. :shrug:

It wouldn't have guaranteed it, but it would have been far more likely than it is now.

No point in my constituency.

[World's End Stella]

No point in my constituency.

Sorry, not having that. Everyone should vote and should vote based on which party represents their views most consistently. The whole thing is pointless otherwise.

And it allows you to then have a proper moan afterwards. :-)

[Peter]

No point in my constituency.


Precisely. Not only was the election NOT about that, but the result doesn't even translate in the same way. I could have voted Lib Dem as a remainer and it would have had no effect on the make up of parliament whatsoever. This is why you hold a referendum on a big single issue. At an election, voters get to decide what they care about.

[Peter]

Sorry, not having that. Everyone should vote and should vote based on which party represents their views most consistently. The whole thing is pointless otherwise.

And it allows you to then have a proper moan afterwards. :-)

The point is that it doesn't lead to a parliament that reflects the national vote and is therefore hopelessly unreliable as an outcome based around a single issue.

[World's End Stella]

The point is that it doesn't lead to a parliament that reflects the national vote and is therefore hopelessly unreliable as an outcome based around a single issue.

Yeah but the point is that any voter should take all issues into account and vote accordingly, saying 'but it won't make any difference in my constituency' is contrary to the democratic process and leaves you in a position where you have no right to complain.

If I voted Leave but then looked at all the issues and decided to vote Labour, I have no right to complain when the minority government is forced to water down Brexit. If it meant that much to me, I should have voted Tory. If it didn't, I have no right to complain. :shrug:

[Ash]

The point is that it doesn't lead to a parliament that reflects the national vote and is therefore hopelessly unreliable as an outcome based around a single issue.

Peter, what would be the situation with free tuition fees (it's ok, Sir C isn't around so we can use the word 'free') if we are in the EU. Would all EU citizens be entitled to free tuition in UK universities? Presumably this isn't what Mr Corbyn intended.

[Ash]

Yeah but the point is that any voter should take all issues into account and vote accordingly, saying 'but it won't make any difference in my constituency' is contrary to the democratic process and leaves you in a position where you have no right to complain.

If I voted Leave but then looked at all the issues and decided to vote Labour, I have no right to complain when the minority government is forced to water down Brexit. If it meant that much to me, I should have voted Tory. If it didn't, I have no right to complain. :shrug:

The 'right' to complain. :hehe:

This is a new, and pointless political concept imo.

[Pokster]

Yeah but the point is that any voter should take all issues into account and vote accordingly, saying 'but it won't make any difference in my constituency' is contrary to the democratic process and leaves you in a position where you have no right to complain.

If I voted Leave but then looked at all the issues and decided to vote Labour, I have no right to complain when the minority government is forced to water down Brexit. If it meant that much to me, I should have voted Tory. If it didn't, I have no right to complain. :shrug:

The problem is that an election wasn't just for what sort of Brexit you want, it was for all the other things that effects your life... so to say those that wanted a hard Brexit should vote Tory doesn't cover it, you might be opposed to every other policy they have

[Peter]

Yeah but the point is that any voter should take all issues into account and vote accordingly, saying 'but it won't make any difference in my constituency' is contrary to the democratic process and leaves you in a position where you have no right to complain.

If I voted Leave but then looked at all the issues and decided to vote Labour, I have no right to complain when the minority government is forced to water down Brexit. If it meant that much to me, I should have voted Tory. If it didn't, I have no right to complain. :shrug:

Exactly- all issues. Which is why a GENERAL election cannot be used as a reliable single issue poll.

[Peter]

Peter, what would be the situation with free tuition fees (it's ok, Sir C isn't around so we can use the word 'free') if we are in the EU. Would all EU citizens be entitled to free tuition in UK universities? Presumably this isn't what Mr Corbyn intended.

No, they wouldn't. Free tuition would revert to the old system of capped numbers and would hugely reduce the number of places available. EU students (apart from Ireland) would apply as EU citizens but would not gain free tuition. They would likely face the full cost tuition in the same way that international students do, but without the visa restriction. They would also be excluded from the capped numbers- which is why when you walk around Oxford, Cambridge or UCL you will hear a million and one American accents- its far easier for them to get into the best institutions than it is for a home student.

Yet billions in taxpayers’ money goes to supporting these institutions in the form of research funding (research-intensive university is politician speak for the universities that they went to).

Obviously we still allow home students to go to the crap universities 

[Burney]

Sorry, not having that. Everyone should vote and should vote based on which party represents their views most consistently. The whole thing is pointless otherwise.

And it allows you to then have a proper moan afterwards. :-)

Nonsense. What if your chief desire is to deliver a rebuke to the PM or the party in power? In those circumstances, it's perfectly legitimate to choose the candidate most likely to give that PM or party a bloody nose - regardless of whether you agree with all their policies or not.
Democracy is a means of representing yourself and trying to make manifest your wishes. It's not an opinion poll.

[Peter]

Nonsense. What if your chief desire is to deliver a rebuke to the PM or the party in power? In those circumstances, it's perfectly legitimate to choose the candidate most likely to give that PM or party a bloody nose - regardless of whether you agree with all their policies or not.
Democracy is a means of representing yourself and trying to make manifest your wishes. It's not an opinion poll.

We are not talking about democracy, b. We are talking about a british general election ;)

[World's End Stella]

The 'right' to complain. :hehe:

This is a new, and pointless political concept imo.

It isn't new, pointless or political, it's just very simple. If you vote in a manner which is inconsistent with an outcome, complaining about that outcome on message boards or in pubs leads you open to the counter point that 'you should have voted differently then, you have no one to blame but yourself'.

Not that AWIMB would ever engage in such behavior, of course. :-)

[World's End Stella]

Nonsense. What if your chief desire is to deliver a rebuke to the PM or the party in power? In those circumstances, it's perfectly legitimate to choose the candidate most likely to give that PM or party a bloody nose - regardless of whether you agree with all their policies or not.
Democracy is a means of representing yourself and trying to make manifest your wishes. It's not an opinion poll.

I'm not too sure we're disagreeing. In the scenario you describe 'their views' are that the PM or party in power need a rebuke and that transcends any specific policy agreement or disagreements and they should therefore vote accordingly. Conversely, if 'they' decide to vote for the PM they dislike because of the party's policies, 'they' then shouldn't complain about what a c*nt the PM is.

Which brings me back to the original point. Anyone who voted Labour shouldn't be moaning about the watering down of Brexit. It was pretty obvious that a minority government was going to dramatically increase the odds of that happening. Tough decision for anti-Tory Leave voters, I accept.

[Ash]

It isn't new, pointless or political, it's just very simple. If you vote in a manner which is inconsistent with an outcome, complaining about that outcome on message boards or in pubs leads you open to the counter point that 'you should have voted differently then, you have no one to blame but yourself'.

Not that AWIMB would ever engage in such behavior, of course. :-)

No, because FPTP renders votes meaningless for any party below second in a constituency. Also, I voted for a party whose leadership insisted they stand for leaving the single market, which in your language is a hard Brexit. On this basis over 80% voted for parties promising a hard Brexit, and both of those parties said the manner was settled before the election, which then proceded on the basis of all the other multiple issues on which GEs are fought.

What is really happening here is that the vast majority of the ruling class has been determined to scupper Breixt since the referendum and is using this election result as an excuse to flood the airwaves with sophistry of the kind that you are presenting here. :-)

[Peter]

I'm not too sure we're disagreeing. In the scenario you describe 'their views' are that the PM or party in power need a rebuke and that transcends any specific policy agreement or disagreements and they should therefore vote accordingly. Conversely, if 'they' decide to vote for the PM they dislike because of the party's policies, 'they' then shouldn't complain about what a c*nt the PM is.

Which brings me back to the original point. Anyone who voted Labour shouldn't be moaning about the watering down of Brexit. It was pretty obvious that a minority government was going to dramatically increase the odds of that happening. Tough decision for anti-Tory Leave voters, I accept.

So now you are saying that a Labour voter who is a leaver should not have voted Labour (even though they most consistently represent their views on policy) because there was a possibility it could lead to a hung parliament (which NOBODY predicted) which would then water down Brexit even though the party that they voted for had explicitly said that they accepted the referendum vote and would let parliament agree the Brexit deal.

Despite all of that the Labour voter should have voted Tory and if they didn’t they have no right to complain?

Can’t you see how ridiculous that is?

[Peter]

No, because FPTP renders votes meaningless for any party below second in a constituency. Also, I voted for a party whose leadership insisted they stand for leaving the single market, which in your language is a hard Brexit. On this basis over 80% voted for parties promising a hard Brexit, and both of those parties said the manner was settled before the election, which then proceded on the basis of all the other multiple issues on which GEs are fought.

What is really happening here is that the vast majority of the ruling class has been determined to scupper Breixt since the referendum and is using this election result as an excuse to flood the airwaves with sophistry of the kind that you are presenting here. :-)

Its more that a hung parliament makes everything difficult. I would still expect Brexit to happen and to include an end to freedom of movement. There will be a riot if it doesn't.

[Pokster]

So now you are saying that a Labour voter who is a leaver should not have voted Labour (even though they most consistently represent their views on policy) because there was a possibility it could lead to a hung parliament (which NOBODY predicted) which would then water down Brexit even though the party that they voted for had explicitly said that they accepted the referendum vote and would let parliament agree the Brexit deal.

Despite all of that the Labour voter should have voted Tory and if they didn’t they have no right to complain?

Can’t you see how ridiculous that is?

Don't forget that WES thinks anyone who voted Lasbour is mental anyway :rolleyes:

[World's End Stella]

No, because FPTP renders votes meaningless for any party below second in a constituency. Also, I voted for a party whose leadership insisted they stand for leaving the single market, which in your language is a hard Brexit. On this basis over 80% voted for parties promising a hard Brexit, and both of those parties said the manner was settled before the election, which then proceded on the basis of all the other multiple issues on which GEs are fought.

What is really happening here is that the vast majority of the ruling class has been determined to scupper Breixt since the referendum and is using this election result as an excuse to flood the airwaves with sophistry of the kind that you are presenting here. :-)

I don't think it's sophistry to point out that Corbyn was never going to get elected so a vote for Labour was a vote for (at best) a minority government. And minority governments have to compromise, both within their party and outside of their party. It's rather important to remember that over 16 million people voted to remain, so the likelihood that a minority government was going to get a hard Brexit through was always very unlikely.

And the Tories and Labour never promised a hard Brexit, that is just completely untrue. The Tories made it clear that it was an option, Labour were much more cautious.

Of course, we also don't know what May would actually have done had she received a strong majority. There were rumours about that she had already told the EU that she was willing to compromise once she had the majority. Now that would have resulted in sophistry of epic proportions.

[World's End Stella]

So now you are saying that a Labour voter who is a leaver should not have voted Labour (even though they most consistently represent their views on policy) because there was a possibility it could lead to a hung parliament (which NOBODY predicted) which would then water down Brexit even though the party that they voted for had explicitly said that they accepted the referendum vote and would let parliament agree the Brexit deal.

Despite all of that the Labour voter should have voted Tory and if they didn’t they have no right to complain?

Can’t you see how ridiculous that is?

See above, it was clear that a minority government was going to struggle to get a hard Brexit through so Labour voters who voted for Brexit and wanted a hard Brexit had a difficult decision to make.

Life's a bitch sometimes.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Peter, what would be the situation with free tuition fees (it's ok, Sir C isn't around so we can use the word 'free') if we are in the EU. Would all EU citizens be entitled to free tuition in UK universities? Presumably this isn't what Mr Corbyn intended.

No. When I did my first degree, '89-92, it was free for us, costly for EU students and downright extortionate for out and out foreigners.

[Peter]

See above, it was clear that a minority government was going to struggle to get a hard Brexit through so Labour voters who voted for Brexit and wanted a hard Brexit had a difficult decision to make.

Life's a bitch sometimes.

In that they were forced to choose between Brexit and everything else they have ever believed in?

Yeah, pretty difficult :)

[Peter]

No. When I did my first degree, '89-92, it was free for us, costly for EU students and downright extortionate for out and out foreigners.

Right, but the EU was hardly even the EU then. Not that I want you to feel old or anything (you are clearly quite old!).

Nevertheless, you are right.

[Lar d'Arse]

Not that I can preach from any position because our own electoral system is extremely flawed but isn't the problem in the UK that your General Elections are too like referenda. First past the post means a black and white outcome except on the rare occasions where a hung parliament results.

Leave or Remain was always a daft question to ask the electorate because no one really understood what Leave meant. Or at least there was a lot of ambiguity in what Leave might mean. If not we would not be hearing any debate over a hard or soft Brexit, staying in or leaving the Single Market or the Customs Union etc.

It is just as easy, especially given the polls in advance of the referendum, to argue that many of those who voted Leave were doing so as a Protest Vote at the time and given the relatively small majority it could easily be that such voters swung the final decision.

Just as it is easy to argue now that many of those who voted Labour did so in protest at the Government's 'handling' of Brexit, and/or the calling of the Election in the first place. I accept Brexit was not a campaign issue in itself, save to the extent that May wanted to have a greater mandate to negotiate what she saw as the right version of Brexit. What better way to protest than to weaken her hand! Did anyone really expect Corbyn to get a majority?

But just as Brexit disenfranchises the 48% who voted Remain, ftpt disenfranchises those who voted anything other than the winner and in most cases the winner gets significantly less than 50% of the vote.

All this is great for debates on message boards but it doesn't say a lot for democracy.

One final point. It just so happens that the DUP hold the balance of power with their 10 seats. That is an accident of the result in the Election. They were pro-Brexit but probably more aligned to a softer version because they don't want to see an Irish Border. But equally they were always opposed to a Brexit that would result in a special status for Northern Ireland. It's a hard one to reconcile but that never stopped a Northern politician. But to my mind it is their stance that will dictate whether the Brexit that is negotiated will be hard or soft. The vote for Labour diminished May's authority to this extent only.

Which to digress, leads me to my final point* - is not May's authority diminished to such an extent that the only reason she has held on to any power, because no one now wants the poisoned chalice of being PM with a minority government having to negotiate an impossible deal that will be roundly criticised by virtually all concerned?

*oops - two final points - sorry and apologies this was so long!

[Peter]

Not that I can preach from any position because our own electoral system is extremely flawed but isn't the problem in the UK that your General Elections are too like referenda. First past the post means a black and white outcome except on the rare occasions where a hung parliament results.

Leave or Remain was always a daft question to ask the electorate because no one really understood what Leave meant. Or at least there was a lot of ambiguity in what Leave might mean. If not we would not be hearing any debate over a hard or soft Brexit, staying in or leaving the Single Market or the Customs Union etc.

It is just as easy, especially given the polls in advance of the referendum, to argue that many of those who voted Leave were doing so as a Protest Vote at the time and given the relatively small majority it could easily be that such voters swung the final decision.

Just as it is easy to argue now that many of those who voted Labour did so in protest at the Government's 'handling' of Brexit, and/or the calling of the Election in the first place. I accept Brexit was not a campaign issue in itself, save to the extent that May wanted to have a greater mandate to negotiate what she saw as the right version of Brexit. What better way to protest than to weaken her hand! Did anyone really expect Corbyn to get a majority?

But just as Brexit disenfranchises the 48% who voted Remain, ftpt disenfranchises those who voted anything other than the winner and in most cases the winner gets significantly less than 50% of the vote.

All this is great for debates on message boards but it doesn't say a lot for democracy.

One final point. It just so happens that the DUP hold the balance of power with their 10 seats. That is an accident of the result in the Election. They were pro-Brexit but probably more aligned to a softer version because they don't want to see an Irish Border. But equally they were always opposed to a Brexit that would result in a special status for Northern Ireland. It's a hard one to reconcile but that never stopped a Northern politician. But to my mind it is their stance that will dictate whether the Brexit that is negotiated will be hard or soft. The vote for Labour diminished May's authority to this extent only.

Which to digress, leads me to my final point* - is not May's authority diminished to such an extent that the only reason she has held on to any power, because no one now wants the poisoned chalice of being PM with a minority government having to negotiate an impossible deal that will be roundly criticised by virtually all concerned?

*oops - two final points - sorry and apologies this was so long!

Well, in relation to your last point, yes.

It serves us right that we are now being ruled by Ireland. About time ;)

[Ash]

Goos to see you here, Lar. :thumbup: Lot of points there.


Not that I can preach from any position because our own electoral system is extremely flawed but isn't the problem in the UK that your General Elections are too like referenda. First past the post means a black and white outcome except on the rare occasions where a hung parliament results.

Yes, I am not a fan of FPTP because it renders many voters' decisions utterly meaningless, and a party can have 20-25% of the vote and have close to zero seats in parliament. The advantage of FPTP is that it gets government majorities and then at least someone is in charge and can get on with it. So I completely disagree with you that our GE is like a referenum because in the latter very vote actually counts. If you lose, too bad, but how many points do you get losing a football match 5-4?


Leave or Remain was always a daft question to ask the electorate because no one really understood what Leave meant. Or at least there was a lot of ambiguity in what Leave might mean. If not we would not be hearing any debate over a hard or soft Brexit, staying in or leaving the Single Market or the Customs Union etc.

What people meant by Leave was to leave the EU. Not stay in it and pretend to leave. They wanted some or all of:

1) Return of legislative power to an democratically accountable government in Westminster, rather than an unelected and unnacountable Commission in Brussels and Luxumbourg.

2) Control of Britain's borders. Optimisation of immigration levels.

3) End to the huge net contribution to the EU.

Soft Brexit (which was never mentioned before the referendum) is unlikely to allow any of these, as the single maket prohibits the first two, and the countries that benefit from the third do not wish to give that up.



It is just as easy, especially given the polls in advance of the referendum, to argue that many of those who voted Leave were doing so as a Protest Vote at the time and given the relatively small majority it could easily be that such voters swung the final decision.

'Easily' assuming that peoples' votes were for some spurious reason that should be discounted is not very democratic. One might just as 'easily' argue that many people who voted remain did so because all their friends were and because they were being told to do so by almost the entire political establishment. Should we subtract those votes too?



Just as it is easy to argue now that many of those who voted Labour did so in protest at the Government's 'handling' of Brexit, and/or the calling of the Election in the first place. I accept Brexit was not a campaign issue in itself, save to the extent that May wanted to have a greater mandate to negotiate what she saw as the right version of Brexit. What better way to protest than to weaken her hand! Did anyone really expect Corbyn to get a majority?

But just as Brexit disenfranchises the 48% who voted Remain, ftpt disenfranchises those who voted anything other than the winner and in most cases the winner gets significantly less than 50% of the vote.

All this is great for debates on message boards but it doesn't say a lot for democracy.


And if Remain had won by a narrow margin? Would you be arguing in favour of some kind of Brexit to represent all the leavers who would have narrowly been disenfranchised? I suspect not.

Remainers have ben very well represented, I think. They have been represented by basically the entire ruling class. Campaigning before the referendum for remain were: The leaderships of the three main parties. 80% of MPs. All the heavyweight newspapers (and both of the free tabloids available in London). All of the capitalist and financial class - the IMF, World Bank, CBI. The EU. The POTUS of the day threatened Britain. The academic class. The celebrity and luvvie classes.




One final point. It just so happens that the DUP hold the balance of power with their 10 seats. That is an accident of the result in the Election. They were pro-Brexit but probably more aligned to a softer version because they don't want to see an Irish Border. But equally they were always opposed to a Brexit that would result in a special status for Northern Ireland. It's a hard one to reconcile but that never stopped a Northern politician. But to my mind it is their stance that will dictate whether the Brexit that is negotiated will be hard or soft. The vote for Labour diminished May's authority to this extent only.

Which to digress, leads me to my final point* - is not May's authority diminished to such an extent that the only reason she has held on to any power, because no one now wants the poisoned chalice of being PM with a minority government having to negotiate an impossible deal that will be roundly criticised by virtually all concerned?

*oops - two final points - sorry and apologies this was so long!

The Irish border is a tricky one, yes. Unionist parties have done deals with governments before, including Callaghan and Major.

And finally, Mr Corbyn seems to want to be PM, though I would not welcome a coalition with the SNP and Lib Dems. Oddly enough, Corbyn has spent two years being savaged by many of the same people who have been savaging the Leave decision and the voters who made it. And now Corbyn's gains are being used as an excuse to cancel the referendum result, by attempting to deploy the fake Brexit known as Soft Brexit.

[redgunamo]

If you lose, too bad, but how many points do you get losing a football match 5-4?

Quite right. And losing does not "disenfranchise" your team either, does it.

Whatever happened to the underpinning principle of collective responsibilty? It's almost as though the whole "fourth place is like a trophy" malarkey was actually dangerous snowflakery and if your side doesn't win, the result must be somehow illegitimate.

[Lar d'Arse]

Goos to see you here, Lar. :thumbup: Lot of points there.



Yes, I am not a fan of FPTP because it renders many voters' decisions utterly meaningless, and a party can have 20-25% of the vote and have close to zero seats in parliament. The advantage of FPTP is that it gets government majorities and then at least someone is in charge and can get on with it. So I completely disagree with you that our GE is like a referenum because in the latter very vote actually counts. If you lose, too bad, but how many points do you get losing a football match 5-4?



What people meant by Leave was to leave the EU. Not stay in it and pretend to leave. They wanted some or all of:

1) Return of legislative power to an democratically accountable government in Westminster, rather than an unelected and unnacountable Commission in Brussels and Luxumbourg.

2) Control of Britain's borders. Optimisation of immigration levels.

3) End to the huge net contribution to the EU.

Soft Brexit (which was never mentioned before the referendum) is unlikely to allow any of these, as the single maket prohibits the first two, and the countries that benefit from the third do not wish to give that up.



'Easily' assuming that peoples' votes were for some spurious reason that should be discounted is not very democratic. One might just as 'easily' argue that many people who voted remain did so because all their friends were and because they were being told to do so by almost the entire political establishment. Should we subtract those votes too?



And if Remain had won by a narrow margin? Would you be arguing in favour of some kind of Brexit to represent all the leavers who would have narrowly been disenfranchised? I suspect not.

Remainers have ben very well represented, I think. They have been represented by basically the entire ruling class. Campaigning before the referendum for remain were: The leaderships of the three main parties. 80% of MPs. All the heavyweight newspapers (and both of the free tabloids available in London). All of the capitalist and financial class - the IMF, World Bank, CBI. The EU. The POTUS of the day threatened Britain. The academic class. The celebrity and luvvie classes.




The Irish border is a tricky one, yes. Unionist parties have done deals with governments before, including Callaghan and Major.

And finally, Mr Corbyn seems to want to be PM, though I would not welcome a coalition with the SNP and Lib Dems. Oddly enough, Corbyn has spent two years being savaged by many of the same people who have been savaging the Leave decision and the voters who made it. And now Corbyn's gains are being used as an excuse to cancel the referendum result, by attempting to deploy the fake Brexit known as Soft Brexit.

Lot's there to reply to Ash.

Not sure I accept your differentiating between every vote counting in a Referendum and not in a GE. Ask any MP in a marginal constituency and they will say that every vote counts. If the Brexit vote had been 65-35 either way then the same principle applies. The losing voter's vote is largely meaningless. You'll forgive me if I ignore your football match analogy.

You have very kindly outlined what your understanding of what voting 'leave' meant. I have no doubt that many agree with that point of view. But I also have no doubt that there are people who voted leave who thought differently. I may have phrased it poorly when I said no one really understood what leave meant. It would have been better to say it meant different things to different people.

I completely accept that it is irrelevant why people may have voted the way they did and whatever the reason does not make their vote less valid. I was saying that some referenda, and indeed elections are decided by what might be described as protest votes.

If Remain had won surely none of this debate would be happening. If it had been a narrow victory it would have been hailed by Europe as a resounding victory for the 'European Project' but people like Farage (if not the man himself) would be arguing that you cannot ignore the votes of 48% or so that voted to leave and that these voters are being disenfranchised if their views are not at least taken on board such that the EU would require some serious introspection as to whether it needed reform etc. [I suspect incidentally that UKIP would have won more than 1.8% of the vote in the recent GE too.]

My point regarding the DUP was that it was them who will cause Brexit to be as 'soft' as it now appears may be the case. This is just an accident of the numbers not because the DUP or the Tories have any particular political affinity. [I accept that official name of the Tories may contain the word Unionist in some shape but if they even had any even tenuous link with any party in the North it was with the UUP who have now been obliterated. I may remind you that it was the Rev Ian Paisley who established the DUP in NI only in the 1960s and they have probably never really seen eye to eye with the Tories politically].

Fun Fact: Rev Ian Paisley is an anagram for "VILE IRA PANSY"

[Ash]

Not sure I accept your differentiating between every vote counting in a Referendum and not in a GE. Ask any MP in a marginal constituency and they will say that every vote counts. If the Brexit vote had been 65-35 either way then the same principle applies. The losing voter's vote is largely meaningless. You'll forgive me if I ignore your football match analogy.

Votes count in marginals, yes. Not so in safe seats. In a referendum, or with PR ,every vote counts.


Fun Fact: Rev Ian Paisley is an anagram for "VILE IRA PANSY"

:hehe: Splendid.

[Burney]

Lot's there to reply to Ash.

Not sure I accept your differentiating between every vote counting in a Referendum and not in a GE. Ask any MP in a marginal constituency and they will say that every vote counts. If the Brexit vote had been 65-35 either way then the same principle applies. The losing voter's vote is largely meaningless. You'll forgive me if I ignore your football match analogy.

You have very kindly outlined what your understanding of what voting 'leave' meant. I have no doubt that many agree with that point of view. But I also have no doubt that there are people who voted leave who thought differently. I may have phrased it poorly when I said no one really understood what leave meant. It would have been better to say it meant different things to different people.

I completely accept that it is irrelevant why people may have voted the way they did and whatever the reason does not make their vote less valid. I was saying that some referenda, and indeed elections are decided by what might be described as protest votes.

If Remain had won surely none of this debate would be happening. If it had been a narrow victory it would have been hailed by Europe as a resounding victory for the 'European Project' but people like Farage (if not the man himself) would be arguing that you cannot ignore the votes of 48% or so that voted to leave and that these voters are being disenfranchised if their views are not at least taken on board such that the EU would require some serious introspection as to whether it needed reform etc. [I suspect incidentally that UKIP would have won more than 1.8% of the vote in the recent GE too.]

My point regarding the DUP was that it was them who will cause Brexit to be as 'soft' as it now appears may be the case. This is just an accident of the numbers not because the DUP or the Tories have any particular political affinity. [I accept that official name of the Tories may contain the word Unionist in some shape but if they even had any even tenuous link with any party in the North it was with the UUP who have now been obliterated. I may remind you that it was the Rev Ian Paisley who established the DUP in NI only in the 1960s and they have probably never really seen eye to eye with the Tories politically].

Fun Fact: Rev Ian Paisley is an anagram for "VILE IRA PANSY"

I'm always mystified by this assertion that people who voted Leave didn't know what Leave meant. It's always said as if to suggest Remain voters knew exactly what Remain meant - when they knew no such thing.
Most Remain voters feared change and on the whole preferred the status quo. In fact, they'd have got a reinvigorated EU glorying in their endorsement and treating it as a mandate to drive through ever closer Union and the gradual drift of more and more powers to Brussels. That is not what most Remain voters wanted, but that's what they'd have got.
They also would have seen the question of a referendum on membership kicked into the long grass for another generation, with the matter being seen as settled. We had one chance to stop that happening and thankfully, we took it.

[Lar d'Arse]

I'm always mystified by this assertion that people who voted Leave didn't know what Leave meant. It's always said as if to suggest Remain voters knew exactly what Remain meant - when they knew no such thing.
Most Remain voters feared change and on the whole preferred the status quo. In fact, they'd have got a reinvigorated EU glorying in their endorsement and treating it as a mandate to drive through ever closer Union and the gradual drift of more and more powers to Brussels. That is not what most Remain voters wanted, but that's what they'd have got.
They also would have seen the question of a referendum on membership kicked into the long grass for another generation, with the matter being seen as settled. We had one chance to stop that happening and thankfully, we took it.

Do you even know what 'leave' means today? I clarified that what I should have said was that 'leave' meant different things to different people. I still believe that. If it was clear before the vote why is there even any debate about what it should mean now?

I accept what you say would have happened had remain won and said as much.

[World's End Stella]

I'm always mystified by this assertion that people who voted Leave didn't know what Leave meant. It's always said as if to suggest Remain voters knew exactly what Remain meant - when they knew no such thing.
Most Remain voters feared change and on the whole preferred the status quo. In fact, they'd have got a reinvigorated EU glorying in their endorsement and treating it as a mandate to drive through ever closer Union and the gradual drift of more and more powers to Brussels. That is not what most Remain voters wanted, but that's what they'd have got.
They also would have seen the question of a referendum on membership kicked into the long grass for another generation, with the matter being seen as settled. We had one chance to stop that happening and thankfully, we took it.

It's disingenuous to suggest that there were as many unknowns with Remain as there were and are with Leave.

There are far more unknowns with Leave, hence the panic amongst Leave voters about what a soft Brexit might really be.

[World's End Stella]

And this is nonsense, Burney. You have no idea at all whether anything like this would have happened.

'In fact, they'd have got a reinvigorated EU glorying in their endorsement and treating it as a mandate to drive through ever closer Union and the gradual drift of more and more powers to Brussels. That is not what most Remain voters wanted, but that's what they'd have got. '

[redgunamo]

And this is nonsense, Burney. You have no idea at all whether anything like this would have happened.

'In fact, they'd have got a reinvigorated EU glorying in their endorsement and treating it as a mandate to drive through ever closer Union and the gradual drift of more and more powers to Brussels. That is not what most Remain voters wanted, but that's what they'd have got. '

No, he's quite right, imo. We know their sort, and we know what they're like. With the eurotrash it's always the same; they don't like us and we don't trust them.