It’s obvious to anyone capable of applying objective thought to the subject that the population (of those who are interested) are pretty much split down the middle. If we’d had another referendum the numbers would have been about the same, give or take, not least because most people haven’t changed their minds.They didn’t though. At the last GE more people voted for a pro Remain or pro confirmatory ref party than they did for pro Brexit. Our fptp system delivered the result, a complete failure for tactical voting.
Evidently there are some still incapable of that.It’s obvious to anyone capable of applying objective thought to the subject that the population (of those who are interested) are pretty much split down the middle. If we’d had another referendum the numbers would have been about the same, give or take, not least because most people haven’t changed their minds.
Using the GE as a counter-argument to that is misconceived and somewhat simplistic, especially given the presence of FPTP.
Mental gymnastics that validates ‘winning’ most likely.Evidently there are some still incapable of that.
I want to be cautious on 'starting something' as having got a load of abuse when previously commenting that if there is a future No-Deal Brexit then Corbyn would clearly bear a lot of responsibility.They didn’t though. At the last GE more people voted for a pro Remain or pro confirmatory ref party than they did for pro Brexit. Our fptp system delivered the result, a complete failure for tactical voting.
I want to be cautious on 'starting something' as having got a load of abuse when previously commenting that if there is a future No-Deal Brexit then Corbyn would clearly bear a lot of responsibility.
To be clear that is not because of anything from the GE onwards - but the simple fact that there was the opportunity to stymie the government - refuse a GE and hold a 2nd referendum, but Corbyn chose personal and party interest ahead of taking that opportunity.
On that basis - just a quick comment on the "....complete failure for tactical voting."
The way your post reads suggests that the failure of tactical voting could be laid on the voters - which I suggest is wrong.
Is there not a similar need to apportion 'blame' on the opposition parties?
If the opposition parties had worked together and provided to the electorate clarity on how to tactical vote then there would not have been a 'failure of tactical voting'
So for me it follows that the LibDems and Labour put selfish party interests and personal ambition ahead of stopping Brexit.
I just think that fact bears pointing out
I generally agree - I was very anxious about a 2nd referendum as I thought it very possible that Remain would get a small majorityIt’s obvious to anyone capable of applying objective thought to the subject that the population (of those who are interested) are pretty much split down the middle. If we’d had another referendum the numbers would have been about the same, give or take, not least because most people haven’t changed their minds.
Using the GE as a counter-argument to that is misconceived and somewhat simplistic, especially given the presence of FPTP.
No No No!!!!Ha ha ha ha - blame Corbyn - you know a No Deal will be a fucking disaster so are making sure you blame everyone else beforehand ha ha ha ha ha - welcome to the fold my friend - the fold that has been saying since 2016 that No Deal is a fucking nightmare.
Remain winning that referendum wouldn’t have provided the panacea that many Remainers presumed it would, thanks to Cameron's Folly.I generally agree - I was very anxious about a 2nd referendum as I thought it very possible that Remain would get a small majority
I could not believe the decision to hand Johnson his referendum - it was exactly what Leavers wanted
That is why I have made a couple of posts commenting on Corbyn and LibDems putting personal/party interests ahead of stopping Brexit - I am obviously pleased to say
Oh I agree - you have posted for some time that the position that we had arrived at meant that (even if regretfully) you acknowledged that we had to Leave - I, of course, feel the sameRemain winning that referendum wouldn’t have provided the panacea that many Remainers presumed it would, thanks to Cameron's Folly.
I can see how you would come to that erroneous conclusion from my comment. I see it as two separate things. I have posted often about Swinson and Corbyns 'criminal' culpability in not working together. The fact that they clearly both had egos which precluded that necessary and sensible step betrayed Remain voters completely and inevitably lead to attempts to organise Remain voters down the tactical voting path. There were numerous organisations that launched websites where you just entered your postcode and up popped a recommendation as to who to vote for to avoid splitting the Remain vote. It was expected that if voters followed these recommendations then up to 70 additional seats could be won by the relative 'remain' parties. In reality hardly any were and votes were indeed split. Combined with Labours abject performance the Tory majority was delivered. This was the failure I was referring to. Hope that clarifies.I want to be cautious on 'starting something' as having got a load of abuse when previously commenting that if there is a future No-Deal Brexit then Corbyn would clearly bear a lot of responsibility.
To be clear that is not because of anything from the GE onwards - but the simple fact that there was the opportunity to stymie the government - refuse a GE and hold a 2nd referendum, but Corbyn chose personal and party interest ahead of taking that opportunity.
On that basis - just a quick comment on the "....complete failure for tactical voting."
The way your post reads suggests that the failure of tactical voting could be laid on the voters - which I suggest is wrong.
Is there not a similar need to apportion 'blame' on the opposition parties?
If the opposition parties had worked together and provided to the electorate clarity on how to tactical vote then there would not have been a 'failure of tactical voting'
So for me it follows that the LibDems and Labour put selfish party interests and personal ambition ahead of stopping Brexit.
I just think that fact bears pointing out
Why do you say that?Remain winning that referendum wouldn’t have provided the panacea that many Remainers presumed it would, thanks to Cameron's Folly.
Which part?Why do you say that?
the bit where you suggest that Remain winning a second ref wouldn't solve anything.Which part?
Mental gymnastics that validates ‘winning’ most likely.
Agreed.Of course had the Lib Dems win the GE remain would never have claimed victory......nope......never as they are all critical thinkers.
Seriously mate the putting down of folk has to stop.
The GE was a single issue affair it's that simple.
Ok,wasn’t sure if you were questioning whether Cameron’s decision was a foolish one (although I thought it unlikely!)the bit where you suggest that Remain winning a second ref wouldn't solve anything.
Not everyone thinks simply in terms of ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ in the context of the referendum, although I know it gives some people a hard-on to do so.Of course had the Lib Dems win the GE remain would never have claimed victory......nope......never as they are all critical thinkers.
If only this conclusion had been arrived at by more people sooner, we could have avoided 3 years of this political turmoil and division.Ok,wasn’t sure if you were questioning whether Cameron’s decision was a foolish one (although I thought it unlikely!)
Because if Remain had won (imo) it is inconceivable that it would have been by anything other than a small margin. I also believe that part of the associated narrative would have been a significant number of Leavers who refused to engage with a second referendum (and more dangerously, with the democratic process going forward). This turn of events would have cause significant social unrest and quite possibly disorder in the short term and would have rendered roughly half the population (who care) to feel disenfranchised to an egregiously unhealthy extent.
Moreover (and hence the word panacea) it would not have made the issue of our relationship with the EU go away. It would have meant our EU elections being dominated by anti-EU parties being sent to Brussels to behave (at best) in a disruptive and unhelpful way. It would have meant a huge chunk of the population feeling that the internal democratic process in this country is irredeemably flawed and furthermore the issue of the EU would have continued to dominate our politics for years in a way that would be toxic, suffocating and crucially, more extensive than if we lance the boil and follow through with the outcome of the vote.
All this would also be set against the backdrop of a damaged and dysfunctional relationship with the EU at national level, because of (inter alia) the foregoing.
Perhaps a big margin to remain would have significantly militated against all that, but I believe this was too unlikely an outcome to be worth taking the risk.
I believe we’ve simply got to accept the outcome with a degree of fortitude (for the reasons I’ve outlined), try to make it work, and deal with the consequences if we don’t, included in which has to be the option to rejoin after a period of time has passed. This may well entail losing the pound, but again, this is a price that those who want(ed) to leave will have to endure, if that is the will of the people.
Don’t believe in karma per se, but this whole process has been utterly malign and destructive from start to finish, but I believe that the genie is out of the bottle and following the outcome of the referendum is the least worst option available to the nation in the circumstances; not least because 52% didn’t vote to leave in a vacuum (in spite of all the flaws attached to the referendum) irrespective of the arrogant assumption of some Remainers that an overwhelming number of them did.
Therefore, for better or worse, I arrived at the conclusion that leaving is our destiny and any attempt to indefinitely postpone or undermine that, even by means of a second referendum, would have created far more problems for our society than it solved.
We are where we are, I’m afraid.
Not everyone thinks simply in terms of ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ in the context of the referendum, although I know it gives some people a hard-on to do so.
Enjoy your hard-on.Politics, elections, referendums are all about winning.
Losing means you don't get to chose what happens and gets done.