General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
Keep the pressure on and maybe we can get this to a second vote before it;s quietly shelved this time!
"symbolic" being the key word.
This won't lead to anything.
I wish Brexit was a symbolic vote.
It was...
Then it wasn't.
But what would be the point of having a referendum, getting the results and then just saying "oh right, that's interesting" and doing nothing?
What would be the point of having a referendum and deciding that 51% was enough to burn it all without a plan?
The stupidity of politicians is not a reason to ignore what people vote for.
I didn't say ignore the vote. Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
The smart move would be to do Brexit the same way NZ did their flag referendum. First, consult to figure out a small number of possible popular forms of Brexit: soft, hard, technically-still-in-but-with-more-opt-outs? Work it out in enough detail that people can have a relatively clear idea of the goal of each of the 3–5 options, including details like migration, Northern Ireland, and agricultural policy.
Then, put those small number of options to a vote. Ideally using Instant Runoff Voting or Approval Voting, rather than First Past the Post. "Do nothing at all" is not an option at this stage.
Finally, put the option that won the last vote in a head-to-head vote against "do nothing at all". If the "exit" vote wins, trigger article 50 and negotiate according to the clearly-stated goals of the people.
"Brexit means Brexit", tory MPs kept saying. Absolute nonsense. Brexit meant a thousand things to a thousand people. Pretending otherwise made a mockery of democracy.
It's absolutely insane that New Zealand put more effort into proper democratic processes over something as trivial as their flag design than the UK did over their most fundamental piece of foreign policy.
Let me think... Possibly because it was based on lies, manipulation and the significant part of the UK residents were disenfranchised?
Who was disenfranchised? It was the biggest democratic vote in the UK's history, if I recall correctly.
Just three million of EU citizens in the UK and hundreds of thousands of UK citizens in the EU.
They can't vote in general elections either.
Your point is? They live in the UK, pay taxes here - and by the way, they were able to vote in Scottish Independence referendum.
I would like to see Tories if SNP were to exclude English voters from the independence vote.
I would like to see Tories if SNP were to exclude English voters from the independence vote.
That would be denying UK citizens a right to vote in a UK referendum, so that's not even close to the same thing.
That you?
All of the Conservatives who voted, 78 of them, opposed the idea
I'm mildly surprised by that, since FPTP actively hurt them at the last election.
It might have lost the party the election
But the rich party donors don't actually mind their party losing as long as they also control the second party well enough to avoid regulations, taxes, or any modicum of responsibility towards society.
FPTP isn't about which party wins, it's about reducing the power of the electorate far enough that change only happens with the content of the rich.
It's only temporary. Once they've bribed farage sufficiently he'll disband the reform party and the tories will return to dominating elections through the corruption of FPTP. The absurd thing is Labour refuse to accept this and will blunder on refusing to accept we need a proportional electoral system
Labour have just won a 174 seat majority on 34% of the vote with FPTP.
There would be no benefit to them in changing the system.
Oh, there is. There is no guarantee this will be repeated.
In my opinion labour's victory was due to the utter incompetence of the conservatives and unexpected success of the reform party. I don't believe these circumstances will be repeated so labour will get demolished as usual in the next election. The same applies to the lib dems getting 70 seats under FPTP. It won't be repeated so they must work together to repair the damn system
and unexpected success of the reform party
Out of interest, if you tried re-running the election using hypothetical IRV results—giving every Reform vote to the Tories, every Green vote to Labour, etc. (not sure how you'd distribute LibDem votes. Presumably mostly to Labour at this election?)—what would the results be? Has anyone tried doing something like that?
Yeah but they'd get fucked with PR.
Labour less so but they would still prefer FPTP over PR for party reasons. And without one or both of these large groups nothing will change. 😞
Yes. And a constitution, with proper separation of powers.