UKIP

[welshbairn]

This may sound flippant but that's their problem. It's not as big a problem as a Parliament trying to undermine a massive democratic decision. You could quite easily have another GE, another EU referendum and still end up with a result that the majority of MPs disagree with.

 

Parliament overrules the popular will all the time. It's representative democracy, not mob rule. 

[Granny Danger]

There was when Gordon Brown took over. As it happens if he had called an election straight away he would probably have won it for how he handled the financial crisis. His popularity soon plummeted after he dithered and by then it was too late.

Yeah that was an example of the majority political party calling a GE at a time the thought (and in his case thought wrongly) that it was expedient to do so. It was the misuse of GEs for party political purposes that led to the fixed term parliament act.

People seem to be wanting a GE because they don't like the referendum result. That's preposterous.

[CowdenConvert]

So a single commitment in a manifesto filled with commitments is a greater mandate than directly asking the question? I don't think I am the one being fucking stupid here TBH.

So why are the SNP still seeking independence then? Question has been asked and rejected. By your logic no-one is allowed to make that a manifesto commitment and campaign based on that.

[Granny Danger]

Parliament overrules the popular will all the time. It's representative democracy, not mob rule.

Mob rule? Seriously? A referendum on a single issue with a respectfully high turnout is mob rule? I think you're taking the piss here Welshy.

[Jacksgranda]

I totally agree. A single issue referendum trumps any other form of public decision making. Talk of a GE or a second referendum because people don't like the result is a nonsense.

 

I agree.

 

However, if the "big" three - Con, Lab, Lib Dem (and Greens) - ALL have it in their manifesto to hold another EU referendum, then no matter what government is cobbled together, they will be able to claim "the people have endorsed a second referendum". So the only place for leavers to go will be UKIP. Which could prove interesting.

[strichener]

So why are the SNP still seeking independence then? Question has been asked and rejected. By your logic no-one is allowed to make that a manifesto commitment and campaign based on that.

No what I am stating is that the Government cannot use the GE to over-ride the result of the referendum. Your comparison to the SNP isn't even comparative. The SNP are not using the results of the SP elections to ignore the 2014 vote.

You are now trying to change your initial argument that a GE with a manifesto commitment should over-ride the referendum results.

Edited June 26, 2016 by strichener

[Mortar Bored]

I hope UKIP win a majority in a hastily arranged GE.

Will further demonstrate the difference between us.

[Antlion]

What is the script regarding the Fixed Term Parliament Act and this ostensible Autumn election? I've heard multiple political figures and commentators refer to an Autumn election as they it's a simple matter (and why they're knifing Corbyn), but not one has mentioned the FTPA.

[Granny Danger]

So why are the SNP still seeking independence then? Question has been asked and rejected. By your logic no-one is allowed to make that a manifesto commitment and campaign based on that.

It was asked and rejected. Then two further elections were held (at the times they were meant to be held by agreement, not made up to suit other purposes)at both the Westminster election and the Holyrood one the SNP laid out their manifestos which were significantly endorsed.

The possible trigger for a further Independence Referendum was made clear - obviously not clear enough for some stupid folk who still can't get their heads around it no matter how often it is explained - and the 'triple lock' was explained by Sturgeon.

If you can't understand that, by design or otherwise, I certainly have no intention of trying to explain it in further detail.

[strichener]

I agree.

However, if the "big" three - Con, Lab, Lib Dem (and Greens) - ALL have it in their manifesto to hold another EU referendum, then no matter what government is cobbled together, they will be able to claim "the people have endorsed a second referendum". So the only place for leavers to go will be UKIP. Which could prove interesting.

That is why the very notion of it is ludicrous. The reason that the referendum was called was because David Cameron stated that it was important to renegotiate and seek the countries approval. No connotation of results in a GE can be as stark as a binary choice.

[CowdenConvert]

No what I am stating is that the Government cannot use the GE to over-ride the result of the referendum. Your comparison to the SNP isn't even comparative. The SNP are not using the results of the SP elections to ignore the 2014 vote.

You are now trying to change your initial argument that a GE with a manifesto commitment should over-ride the referendum results.

Any political party absolutely can make a manifesto commitment to do whatever they want. If they get elected they are within their right to follow through with the commitment. If the people feel strong enough about it they won't vote for it.

You can disagree all you want but there's absolutely nothing even moralky wrong with it happening.

[Granny Danger]

I agree.

However, if the "big" three - Con, Lab, Lib Dem (and Greens) - ALL have it in their manifesto to hold another EU referendum, then no matter what government is cobbled together, they will be able to claim "the people have endorsed a second referendum". So the only place for leavers to go will be UKIP. Which could prove interesting.

I would be opposed to holding a GE because people don't like the referendum result; I think that's morally dishonest and manipulative.

That aside I have severe practical concerns about a GE because it will drive voters into the arms of UKIP. There may be some Leave voters who are unhappy that they actually won, but there will be millions of people who are happy with the result and who will be furious if they see an attempt to change the result by political shenanigans.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Granny Danger

[strichener]

Any political party absolutely can make a manifesto commitment to do whatever they want. If they get elected they are within their right to follow through with the commitment. If the people feel strong enough about it they won't vote for it.

You can disagree all you want but there's absolutely nothing even moralky wrong with it happening.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this. You appear to think that asking people to vote on 100 things gives a right to overturn a referendum on a single issue. I don't.

[welshbairn]

Mob rule? Seriously? A referendum on a single issue with a respectfully high turnout is mob rule? I think you're taking the piss here Welshy.

 

Maybe a bit  . But I do think a lot of people based their decision on the many pure lies spouted out by Leave. Remain may have painted a bleak picture but I don't remember them telling a single porkie. When they are aware of the full picture many may feel they deserve a second vote.

[Jacksgranda]

Maybe a bit  . But I do think a lot of people based their decision on the many pure lies spouted out by Leave. Remain may have painted a bleak picture but I don't remember them telling a single porkie. When they are aware of the full picture many may feel they deserve a second vote.

 

World War 3.

An emergency budget immediately after a leave vote.

The end to the peace process

[Granny Danger]

Maybe a bit  . But I do think a lot of people based their decision on the many pure lies spouted out by Leave. Remain may have painted a bleak picture but I don't remember them telling a single porkie. When they are aware of the full picture many may feel they deserve a second vote.

By that logic every time we elect a government and find they told lies to get elected then we should have another vote.

It would have a severe impact on our educational system as the schools would need to be turned into full time polling stations.

[CowdenConvert]

Maybe a bit . But I do think a lot of people based their decision on the many pure lies spouted out by Leave. Remain may have painted a bleak picture but I don't remember them telling a single porkie. When they are aware of the full picture many may feel they deserve a second vote.

And the two major lies were recanted very soon after the result.

[LongTimeLurker]

So the only place for leavers to go will be UKIP. Which could prove interesting.

 

Keen observers of the last general election in Scotland will realise why a three way split amongst the traditional mainstream parties against a single upstart opponent fueled by a recent referendum is a recipe for almost complete wipeout and will notice that UKIP's starting position in a Westminster context is not that far off where the SNP were in the 2010 Westminster election with Euro elections being their version of Holyrood polls where significantly greater success had been achieved. A lot of politically aware people across the UK are now at the bargaining stage of the five stages of separation basically. Once they realise it is futile and the result is going to have to be implimented whether they like it or not, we will be into depression and then acceptance.

Edited June 26, 2016 by LongTimeLurker

[Broomhill Ultra]

We don't, and never have had, a presidential system of government in this country. The prime minister has always been chosen from and by the majority political party, or at least for the last hundred years or more.

If Cameron had walked under a bus and the Tories had to select someone to replace him there would be no talk of another GE to give the new PM a mandate.

I know, they covered that in Politicks at Glasgow yooni 😛, however this is not just a new PM though - it's a new cabinet presumably and they'll be pushing through policy that by definition wasn't in the manifesto last year. In this context 'mandate' also means giving Corbyn's Labour a complete shafting leaving them in further disarray. Better?

[Broomhill Ultra]

We don't, and never have had, a presidential system of government in this country. The prime minister has always been chosen from and by the majority political party, or at least for the last hundred years or more.

If Cameron had walked under a bus and the Tories had to select someone to replace him there would be no talk of another GE to give the new PM a mandate.

I know, they covered that in Politicks at Glasgow yooni 😛, however this is not just a new PM though - it's a new cabinet presumably and they'll be pushing through policy that by definition wasn't in the manifesto last year. In this context 'mandate' also means giving Corbyn's Labour a complete shafting leaving them in further disarray. Better?