Cameron rejected any sort of threshold because it was an advisory referendum. Therefore, no thresholds were necessary. That, of course, was one of many cock ups by the plastic-faced idiot.

 

He announvced the idea of a referendum without attempting to gain the support of any of the Tory press for the Remain campaign. Therefore, the only right-wing daily to support Remain was the Times which didn't extend its support to screaming headlines.

 

He claimed that he could negotiate significant changes in the UK's terms of membership in a matter of weeks. As any new deal would have to be ratified by the other 27 members, that was always a ridiculous claim.

 

He made no attempt to run a multi-party campaign. Therefore, people could be excused for thinking it was largely a dispute within one party rather than an issue of major importance for the country's future.

 

He announced before the 2015 election that it would be his last as leader. That meant that Leave-supporting Tories and the right-wing press could describe him as a liar knowing that those words wouldn't be quoted back at them at the next election.

 

He failed to make a positive case for voting Remain. That was hardly surprising as Tories rarely run a positive campaign. It might not have mattered so much if he had made more of an effort to run a multi-party campaign.

 

He spoke in favour of allowing Britons living elsewhere in the EU to have a vote but failed even to attempt to implement that in time for the referendum. He also failed to allow non-British EU citizens living in the UK to vote.

 

If anyone wants to write a book on how to lose a referendum, they need look no further than Cameron's catastrophe.

 

Da truth hurts... :lol:

I'm surprised no-one here has commented on this (or perhaps you have, and I just missed it)? :unsure:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017...acked-democracy

 

Needless to say, there's no much in it I agree with. :P

I'm surprised no-one here has commented on this (or perhaps you have, and I just missed it)? :unsure:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017...acked-democracy

 

Needless to say, there's no much in it I agree with. :P

 

yes I've mentioned the subject several times (though not the article). cambridge anal-ytica are now banned on facebook and are under investigation along with the likes of Farridge.

yes I've mentioned the subject several times (though not the article). cambridge anal-ytica are now banned on facebook and are under investigation along with the likes of Farridge.

 

What, specifically, are they under investigation for?

What, specifically, are they under investigation for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

 

Ok, thanks for that.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this somewhat like the canvassing that political parties have always done, just in a more intensive way? :unsure:

 

I'm not sure what the Farage connection is, though?

Edited March 18, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Have voters changed their minds about Brexit?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43336351

Ok, thanks for that.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this somewhat like the canvassing that political parties have always done, just in a more intensive way? :unsure:

 

I'm not sure what the Farage connection is, though?

If canvassers are paid, that has to be declared as an election expense. Canvassing also relies on data specifically gathered for that purpose or general data about a particular area.

If canvassers are paid, that has to be declared as an election expense. Canvassing also relies on data specifically gathered for that purpose or general data about a particular area.

 

Ah, OK.

Inflation dips to 2.7% as impact of Brexit vote starts to fade

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/m...-starts-to-fade

"The notion of the general will is wholly central to Rousseau's theory of political legitimacy. It is, however, an unfortunately obscure and controversial notion. Some commentators see it as no more than the dictatorship of the proletariat or the tyranny of the urban poor (such as may perhaps be seen in the French Revolution). Such was not Rousseau's meaning. This is clear from the Discourse on Political Economy, where Rousseau emphasizes that the general will exists to protect individuals against the mass, not to require them to be sacrificed to it. He is, of course, sharply aware that men have selfish and sectional interests which will lead them to try to oppress others. It is for this reason that loyalty to the good of all alike must be a supreme (although not exclusive) commitment by everyone, not only if a truly general will is to be heeded but also if it is to be formulated successfully in the first place"

 

So therefore, claiming 'will of the people', as with Vidcapper's much touted anti-French revolution sentiment, results in tyranny of the minority, no matter how large the minority, and promotion of one group's ideas - such as the French peasantry in the revolution. The 1930s had the strong men, the dictators, who also claimed they had the will of the people/ will of the country, with scant majorities either in parliamentary numbers on in % numbers. With Brexit, half (and rising) of the non-MAJORITY is being controlled and dictated to by a vociferous few. This is why using such right-wing dictator speech as, will of the perrplerr, and bast*rdising Rousseau's theory, results in what basically amounts to dictating people. Brexit with 2/2 nations, less Gibraltar, 48% in the referendum, more now, is wholly undemocratic. It shows the need for rational safeguards. If non-binding referenda are then presented as binding, but with no proper frameworks having been set in place, it stands to reason to CHANGE the constitution to avoid further constitutional crisis. I disagree with popular referenda now after seeing them in action, seeing as our 'free press' is just a bunch of propaganda and the BBC does not challenge the Tories, and seeing as misinformation, propaganda and Cambridge Analytica can rule the terms of debate/ information/ disinformation out there. The result has been a divided country seething with anger on BOTH sides. However, for now a change to the constitution to make them binding, but only at 66% and with a 3/4 nation lock, will be a step forward. There basically, after the EU rerun, need not be another referendum for a LONG time, and then only on matters of independence or constitutional change - abolition of national religion, etc.

I disagree with popular referenda now after seeing them in action, seeing as our 'free press' is just a bunch of propaganda and the BBC does not challenge the Tories, and seeing as misinformation, propaganda and Cambridge Analytica can rule the terms of debate/ information/ disinformation out there. The result has been a divided country seething with anger on BOTH sides. However, for now a change to the constitution to make them binding, but only at 66% and with a 3/4 nation lock, will be a step forward. There basically, after the EU rerun, need not be another referendum for a LONG time, and then only on matters of independence or constitutional change - abolition of national religion, etc.

 

How is setting such strict conditions for change a'step forward'? :huh: It would make democratic change virtually impossible.

 

If you *must* have conditions, at least don't make them so harsh that people might be forced to adopt non-democratic means to enact change.

 

Also, don't make them exploitable, as could happen if xx% of the electorate were required for change to be validated. e.g. where opponents could boycott a vote just to scupper it, no matter how popular the change might be with the rest.

Would it? It would protect us from tyranny by simple majority. Add to that a reformation to PR and an elected second chamber and we would FINALLY have a representative democracy. It WOULD be middle ground, meanign slow change, due to the interlocking party structure in such a format, but it would lean left and there WOULD be progress. And it absolutely IS a step in the right direction. It stops right wing authoritarians, current alt right Tories, and dictators using 'weerrl of the perrplerr' atatcks on democracy AND makes such votes rare and far-between, as they SHOULD be.

 

66% and a 3 nation split is absolutely fair. Otherwise, allow the nations to have vetoes. Scotland votes overwhelmingly to stay but England, with the larger population, votes by a small margin to leave. Constitutional crisis? No. Averted by a simple Scottish veto.

 

If a measure were popular enough to get 66%, then it would be obvious from the numbers voting that they would have won regardless of whether or not there was a boycott of the vote. Also, UK is (supposedly, not in practice) a representative democracy. There is NOTHING about referenda as MPs are meant to make the BEST decisions for the well-being of the country/ minorities irrespective of public opinion (although the current lot are just slaves to Murdoch). Therefore, setting stricter parameters (and no worse than golf clubs etc) is well within reason.

 

If 66% is good enough for golf clubs, it's good enough for direct change to a constitution by popular vote, which should REQUIRE such stipulations. Such a vote is LAST RESORT AND it should be WELL protected.

How is setting such strict conditions for change a'step forward'? :huh: It would make democratic change virtually impossible.

 

If you *must* have conditions, at least don't make them so harsh that people might be forced to adopt non-democratic means to enact change.

 

Also, don't make them exploitable, as could happen if xx% of the electorate were required for change to be validated. e.g. where opponents could boycott a vote just to scupper it, no matter how popular the change might be with the rest.

A requirement for x% of the electorate to vote for something does not encourage a boycott. A minimum turnout threshold might.

A requirement for x% of the electorate to vote for something does not encourage a boycott. A minimum turnout threshold might.

 

Oops, that's what I meant! :blush:

 

Would it? It would protect us from tyranny by simple majority. Add to that a reformation to PR and an elected second chamber and we would FINALLY have a representative democracy. It WOULD be middle ground, meanign slow change, due to the interlocking party structure in such a format, but it would lean left and there WOULD be progress.

 

Aha! Your real, politically partisan, agenda revealed!

 

And it absolutely IS a step in the right direction. It stops right wing authoritarians, current alt right Tories, and dictators using 'weerrl of the perrplerr' atatcks on democracy AND makes such votes rare and far-between, as they SHOULD be.

I notice you don't say anything about left-wing authoritarians - does that mean you don't mind *those*?

 

66% and a 3 nation split is absolutely fair. Otherwise, allow the nations to have vetoes. Scotland votes overwhelmingly to stay but England, with the larger population, votes by a small margin to leave. Constitutional crisis? No. Averted by a simple Scottish veto.

 

Wrong - it might solve one, but it would create another - the English would be pissed off at being thwarted by a Scottish population one tenth their number - talk about tyranny of the minority!

 

If it's not OK for a minority of Tory fat-cats to control the country (as you claim), then how can you *possibly* endorse a similar situation where the Scots had a similar level of control?!

 

If 66% is good enough for golf clubs, it's good enough for direct change to a constitution by popular vote, which should REQUIRE such stipulations. Such a vote is LAST RESORT AND it should be WELL protected.

 

So if a golf club voted 2-1 to, say, ban gays, or blacks, or Jews, or women, you'd be OK with that because you only care about the numbers? :huh:

Aha! Your real, politically partisan, agenda revealed!

 

I notice you don't say anything about left-wing authoritarians - does that mean you don't mind *those*?

Wrong - it might solve one, but it would create another - the English would be pissed off at being thwarted by a Scottish population one tenth their number - talk about tyranny of the minority!

 

If it's not OK for a minority of Tory fat-cats to control the country (as you claim), then how can you *possibly* endorse a similar situation where the Scots had a similar level of control?!

So if a golf club voted 2-1 to, say, ban gays, or blacks, or Jews, or women, you'd be OK with that because you only care about the numbers? :huh:

 

Have you SEEN how golf clubs work? They have banned women due to not reaching that threshold.

 

Left wing authoritarians are FEW and FAR between, seeing as being authoritarian goes against everything about being left wing, but still wrong, of course. Look at the difference between how Labour left power (fairly) vs how the Tories are (gerrymandering, trying to force compulsory voter ID laws, like Republicans, in the pockets of the media, creating a one-party state-like feel, cheap minority after cheap minority, bought and paid votes - Scottish and NI mps, who actually come from Remain nations, propping up the failing government and voted through in Scotland due to an AWFUL Labour campaign to elect them to protest the SNP ONLY. Atrocious.

 

Then, the Scottish are thwarted by tyranny by majority. There is still the constitutional crisis. Either it is solved through independence, or there is a BALANCE OF POWER brought through to redress the imbalance in populations. Otherwise, it is colonial and Empire is not dead. It is the PEOPLE vs a minority of fat cats.

Have you SEEN how golf clubs work? They have banned women due to not reaching that threshold.

 

Whoosh...

 

Why do you think I used that example! :rolleyes:

 

Left wing authoritarians are FEW and FAR between, seeing as being authoritarian goes against everything about being left wing, but still wrong, of course. Look at the difference between how Labour left power (fairly) vs how the Tories are (gerrymandering, trying to force compulsory voter ID laws, like Republicans, in the pockets of the media, creating a one-party state-like feel, cheap minority after cheap minority, bought and paid votes - Scottish and NI mps, who actually come from Remain nations, propping up the failing government and voted through in Scotland due to an AWFUL Labour campaign to elect them to protest the SNP ONLY. Atrocious.

 

Then, the Scottish are thwarted by tyranny by majority. There is still the constitutional crisis. Either it is solved through independence, or there is a BALANCE OF POWER brought through to redress the imbalance in populations. Otherwise, it is colonial and Empire is not dead. It is the PEOPLE vs a minority of fat cats.

 

Yawn.

Edited March 21, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Whoosh...

 

Why do you think I used that example! :rolleyes:

Yawn.

 

The point stands? There is a constitutional crisis as of right now?

 

Ys I know why, but the fact that golf clubs see any important change needing 66% shows that they are more scrupulous towards majorities than the British government.

 

Of course, said clubs SHOULD also be privy to anti-discrimination laws anyway, negating the parallel between restricting minority access v addressing constitutional crisis caused by referenda in a parliamentary country of four nations

The point stands? There is a constitutional crisis as of right now?

 

Ys I know why, but the fact that golf clubs see any important change needing 66% shows that they are more scrupulous towards majorities than the British government.

 

Of course, said clubs SHOULD also be privy to anti-discrimination laws anyway, negating the parallel between restricting minority access v addressing constitutional crisis caused by referenda in a parliamentary country of four nations

 

The only power the gov't has over private institutions like this who ignore anti-discrimination laws, is to refuse them state-funded improvement grants - as I believe happened

to the MCC when they wanted to improve Lords cricket ground, because they refused to admit female members. Of course, a lot of wealthy, tory-friendly people are members of the same private clubs that resist progressive reform... :banghead:

 

BTW, what *is* it with your '1 nation, 1 vote' fixation, when that was never part of the referendum legislation (and indeed never could have been part, because it would have been voted down if proposed)?