RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Is the GNU the same as forming a minority govt, just with a friendlier title?

Not if the coalition has a majority in Parliament.

so how does that work procedurally? Does 'x' go and ask the Queen if he/she can have a go (which was the question I meant to ask). I guess this is unprecedented in peace time?

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Frogface doesnt want BJ to get all the "incitement to violence" credit...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24286.html

Police have launched an investigation after Nigel Farage vowed to “take the knife to the pen pushers in Whitehall” after Brexit.

The Brexit Party leader made the comments to around 500 supporters last week after criticising civil servants at a rally in Newport, South Wales.

Article continues

it remains of interest how many of Farage, JRM and so on do we need to kill as a society to end Brexit? If we're being told civil disobedience (which I do like as a phrase) gets you what you want it's there to build on

I'd hope that's irony, given the state of political discourse. And I'd guess about 1.5m to kill it off if you were serious and it were a question worth answering.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Frogface doesnt want BJ to get all the "incitement to violence" credit...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24286.html

it remains of interest how many of Farage, JRM and so on do we need to kill as a society to end Brexit? If we're being told civil disobedience (which I do like as a phrase) gets you what you want it's there to build on

I'd hope that's irony, given the state of political discourse. And I'd guess about 1.5m to kill it off if you were serious and it were a question worth answering.

Yes and no. Arson another possibility, or indeed other types of violence. if our leaders want to state violence is the means to meet your ends it's an interesting call, and not one which will only skew one way

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

it remains of interest how many of Farage, JRM and so on do we need to kill as a society to end Brexit? If we're being told civil disobedience (which I do like as a phrase) gets you what you want it's there to build on

I'd hope that's irony, given the state of political discourse. And I'd guess about 1.5m to kill it off if you were serious and it were a question worth answering.

Yes and no. Arson another possibility, or indeed other types of violence. if our leaders want to state violence is the means to meet your ends it's an interesting call, and not one which will only skew one way

You are an odd one and that's for sure, step away from the Snowballs. I think dear old nasty Nige was guilty of malapropism or summat, and I don't really think any of our leaders, as shitty as they are, have genuinely been calling for violence as solutions.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Is the GNU the same as forming a minority govt, just with a friendlier title?

Not if the coalition has a majority in Parliament.

so how does that work procedurally? Does 'x' go and ask the Queen if he/she can have a go (which was the question I meant to ask). I guess this is unprecedented in peace time?

I'm no expert, but I would assume this is essentially the same as the recent Tory-LibDem coalition - if they can muster a majority in parliament.
If they can't quite muster a majority - but are more numerous than the Tories (or the Tories don't want to form a government) - I think they can still go to the Queen.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Not if the coalition has a majority in Parliament.

so how does that work procedurally? Does 'x' go and ask the Queen if he/she can have a go (which was the question I meant to ask). I guess this is unprecedented in peace time?

I'm no expert, but I would assume this is essentially the same as the recent Tory-LibDem coalition - if they can muster a majority in parliament.
If they can't quite muster a majority - but are more numerous than the Tories (or the Tories don't want to form a government) - I think they can still go to the Queen.

....but isn't this a 'temporary' situation rather than a ( 5 year) sustainable govt?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'd hope that's irony, given the state of political discourse. And I'd guess about 1.5m to kill it off if you were serious and it were a question worth answering.

Yes and no. Arson another possibility, or indeed other types of violence. if our leaders want to state violence is the means to meet your ends it's an interesting call, and not one which will only skew one way

You are an odd one and that's for sure, step away from the Snowballs.

Oh without doubt. But that aside I think it's spectacularly stupid to suggest violence is a reason to go with one side of the Brexit argument, they might be under the impression it helps their side of the argument, but to really push this idea could result in some miserable outcomes, for all sides.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: so how does that work procedurally? Does 'x' go and ask the Queen if he/she can have a go (which was the question I meant to ask). I guess this is unprecedented in peace time?

I'm no expert, but I would assume this is essentially the same as the recent Tory-LibDem coalition - if they can muster a majority in parliament.
If they can't quite muster a majority - but are more numerous than the Tories (or the Tories don't want to form a government) - I think they can still go to the Queen.

....but isn't this a 'temporary' situation rather than a ( 5 year) sustainable govt?

Again, I'm no expert, but I would assume this is procedurally the same as any other government.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I'm no expert, but I would assume this is essentially the same as the recent Tory-LibDem coalition - if they can muster a majority in parliament.
If they can't quite muster a majority - but are more numerous than the Tories (or the Tories don't want to form a government) - I think they can still go to the Queen.

....but isn't this a 'temporary' situation rather than a ( 5 year) sustainable govt?

Again, I'm no expert, but I would assume this is procedurally the same as any other government.

it's the same as any government, but the constituent parts are only agreeing to hold it together for a very limited period and for very specific purpose , they'd try to do very little outside Brexit, and cross their fingers for no major incident(s)

I don’t think a temporary GNU would be any different to any other government, the terms of the fixed term parliament act would still apply so if the coalition partners wanted to go to the country they would need a 2/3 winning vote.

I suppose the key question is whether there is a second referendum or not. Getting a government together to get an extension is probably the easy bit, I don’t think there is much agreement on what to do thereafter.

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t think a temporary GNU would be any different to any other government, the terms of the fixed term parliament act would still apply so if the coalition partners wanted to go to the country they would need a 2/3 winning vote.

I suppose the key question is whether there is a second referendum or not. Getting a government together to get an extension is probably the easy bit, I don’t think there is much agreement on what to do thereafter.

getting the government together if Jeremy Corbyn insists on leading the GNU will be a hard sell to rebel Tory and Lib Dem MPs. one might almost suspect Corbyn sees this as a chance to get Brexit without being tagged for it.

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t think a temporary GNU would be any different to any other government, the terms of the fixed term parliament act would still apply so if the coalition partners wanted to go to the country they would need a 2/3 winning vote.

I suppose the key question is whether there is a second referendum or not. Getting a government together to get an extension is probably the easy bit, I don’t think there is much agreement on what to do thereafter.

Not necessarily - an election could be got from any lost confidence vote if no other group could gain the confidence of the house within 14 days.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t think a temporary GNU would be any different to any other government, the terms of the fixed term parliament act would still apply so if the coalition partners wanted to go to the country they would need a 2/3 winning vote.

I suppose the key question is whether there is a second referendum or not. Getting a government together to get an extension is probably the easy bit, I don’t think there is much agreement on what to do thereafter.

Not necessarily - an election could be got from any lost confidence vote if no other group could gain the confidence of the house within 14 days.

Puja

Good point. But we both agree that a temporary government is no different to a proper one- it continues until it tries to get an election agreed or loses a VONC.

My gut feeling is that a temporarily government of a few weeks only doesn’t really change the situation that much. So we stay in the EU until January (assuming the EU agrees). We have an election. There is a very realistic chance that the Conservatives can win a majority or at least be the largest party. So we are back to square one.

In my opinion, a temporary government needs to organise a referendum. The country can’t be much more divided than it is now, put the May deal to the country vs no deal and let’s see what the response is. Or even the May deal against remain, although that would be a harder sell I think.

Sandydragon wrote:My gut feeling is that a temporarily government of a few weeks only doesn’t really change the situation that much. So we stay in the EU until January (assuming the EU agrees). We have an election. There is a very realistic chance that the Conservatives can win a majority or at least be the largest party. So we are back to square one.

In my opinion, a temporary government needs to organise a referendum. The country can’t be much more divided than it is now, put the May deal to the country vs no deal and let’s see what the response is. Or even the May deal against remain, although that would be a harder sell I think.

Or all 3 with 2nd preference.

My feeling then is that Remain would win the 1st round, perhaps without 50%, and that May's deal may just about sneak over 50% with 2nd preference.

But that May's deal would come third on 1st preference by some distance.

I’d prefer a multiple preference vote, but we don’t do referendums like that so it’s unlikely to happen.

Sandydragon wrote:I’d prefer a multiple preference vote, but we don’t do referendums like that so it’s unlikely to happen.

To be fair - we don't do enough referenda to have a standard way of doing them.
We can't even strike them down for breaking what election rules we do have; or be consistent about who's allowed to vote in them.

To be fair, we can’t even be clear on what the fuck people are voting for, which surely must be the starting point of any election.

Herein lies the problem of referenda and their relationship with a representative democracy.

Banquo wrote:Herein lies the problem of referenda and their relationship with a representative democracy.

They have their place, but the choices must be really clear and really they work better with a binary choice.

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:Herein lies the problem of referenda and their relationship with a representative democracy.

They have their place, but the choices must be really clear and really they work better with a binary choice.

Do they? For large complex decisions? My point being....the relationship with a representative democracy. I think they are a terrible idea for big issues.

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:Herein lies the problem of referenda and their relationship with a representative democracy.

They have their place, but the choices must be really clear and really they work better with a binary choice.

Do they? For large complex decisions? My point being....the relationship with a representative democracy. I think they are a terrible idea for big issues.

The Swiss hold them all the time and it seems to work well for them. My biggest issue is that the leave campaign was never obliged to state exactly what their ‘manifesto’ was. At least in a recent Swiss referendum where they were looking at universal income, they knew what they were voting for or against.

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: They have their place, but the choices must be really clear and really they work better with a binary choice.

Do they? For large complex decisions? My point being....the relationship with a representative democracy. I think they are a terrible idea for big issues.

The Swiss hold them all the time and it seems to work well for them. My biggest issue is that the leave campaign was never obliged to state exactly what their ‘manifesto’ was. At least in a recent Swiss referendum where they were looking at universal income, they knew what they were voting for or against.

And what's the big difference between the Swiss form of democracy and British?

We have a very archaic form of representative democracy in the UK. No written constitution, therefore the power to change said constitution is a little...confused. An FPTP system that creates imbalances in the lower house. An unelected and low power upper house. 2 parties that hold most of the power, neither of whom truly represent the views of most people. A political class made up of people from a small selection of schools and/or universities.

I cannot envisage true change in the British political landscape until someone arrives with the wit and clarity to create a new party that speaks directly to the needs and desires of voters.

And I truly think general left-leaning policies would get the backing of a majority of the populace, if presented clearly and cleverly, with no recourse for "COMMUNIST" labels.

A simple tax calculator app so people can calculate what their tax would be under a new government.
Simple explanations for major policy decisions with a clear line drawn where the funding comes from.

Not "We will raise £2bn through new taxes on corporations" but a calculator that shows how that £2bn would be raised, and a simple graphic to show where the money goes.

Stom wrote:
I cannot envisage true change in the British political landscape until someone arrives with the wit and clarity to create a new party that speaks directly to the needs and desires of voters.

Is this assuming the desires of the voters to be homogenous? Myself I can't imagine much change, partly we're a fairly conservative nation, partly there are so many thick people.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
I cannot envisage true change in the British political landscape until someone arrives with the wit and clarity to create a new party that speaks directly to the needs and desires of voters.

Is this assuming the desires of the voters to be homogenous? Myself I can't imagine much change, partly we're a fairly conservative nation, partly there are so many thick people.

On the whole, yes. We all want more out of life for less effort.

There is a fine line between psychology of voters and sociology, and that's what we need to be treading on.