There is an established tradition of senior politicians (and, advisers and other public servants) resigning when they get something seriously wrong. Which seems to have been ignored by the current government.
They can't resign as they consider that the country needs them.
Yes, well - the only thing you can trust this *government* to do is to Get It Wrong...
But possibly failing to put Failing Grayling in charge of the Intelligence Committee* might be Getting It Right in the long run, if Mr. Lewis gets them to publish the Russian report.
* apologies for putting the words "intelligence" and "Grayling" in the same sentence ...
I am intrigued by this, Lewis is obviously playing his own game here and he is clearly far more capable that Failing Grayling. But then who isn't?
However, a word of caution about Dr Lewis. He is my MP. He is a committed Brexit supporter and judging by his responses to my letters, I am not remotely impressed by him.
It does seem to be that the Government wanted a tame chair for the committee because they are worried about the Russia Report. (I think they must be because of the lengths they've gone to, to keep it out of the public domain for this long). The fact that they've failed and got a different chair is intriguing. However, I am not convinced that Dr Lewis is the answer.
OTOH, the response of the government by removing the Whip suggests they are seriously concerned.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, I expect he’d be worried about foreign interference whether it was happening or not and probably about parliamentary privileges being eroded.
I bet he is the kind of mp who is very clear that his constituents vote for him, rather than a party, (regardless of what most people think they are actually doing),
Probably, given his work and political history, absolutely horrified at having someone as incompetent as Grayling an intelligence chair. I can completely see why the opposition would hold their nose and vote for him. I suspect they’d have voted for any other Tory on the committee if they’d being willing to take the risk of standing, as an alternative to Grayling.
He has wrecked almost everything he has touched - not even in the sense of ideological differences, just rank incompetence. The only reason I can see for number 10 putting him in as a placeman, as opposed to any other Tory loyalist - would be to ensure the committee didn’t function.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, I expect he’d be worried about foreign interference whether it was happening or not and probably about parliamentary privileges being eroded.
I bet he is the kind of mp who is very clear that his constituents vote for him, rather than a party, (regardless of what most people think they are actually doing),
Probably, given his work and political history, absolutely horrified at having someone as incompetent as Grayling an intelligence chair. I can completely see why the opposition would hold their nose and vote for him. I suspect they’d have voted for any other Tory on the committee if they’d being willing to take the risk of standing, as an alternative to Grayling.
He has wrecked almost everything he has touched - not even in the sense of ideological differences, just rank incompetence. The only reason I can see for number 10 putting him in as a placeman, as opposed to any other Tory loyalist - would be to ensure the committee didn’t function.
The country may have other views, but since when did they count?
At election time?
More than half the voters voted for someone else, yet there they sit with an 80 seat majority. Even election time doesn't help if there is disagreement about the best alternative.
I had been consoling myself with the thought that perhaps Grayling would prove to be so useless that he'd even fail to do this job, that he'd not manage to prevent the Russia report getting out. It now seems that he's even failed to get the post in the first place.
According to C4, the first inkling he got that anyone might be able to stop him was when he turned over the ballot paper and realised Lewis's name was on it rather than an opposition member.
Even Peter Bone, who is right as often as a clock that advances five minutes a day has said two or three not entirely insane things. It's very surreal.
I'm so fed up with the 'BUT IT WAS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!' argument that I've given up bothering to answer such a stupid question...
Dashed inconvenient when you live in a democracy and the government elected (or decision made in referendum) goes against your political affiliation or wish. I do feel for you, and all the stupid people who don't agree with you. Ignore them for the most part, but do occasionally remind them of their stupidity, complain relentlessly about those in power and the system and rest on your laurels. You've done your bit soldier.
Yeah, well. If someone was to organise a proper referendum following the precedents and conventions of the UK (aka Constitution) then we would know what the will of the people is. Until then we've only got a farcical and unconstitutional glorified opinion poll (with a non-question that would have any pollster sacked for letting get beyond the first draft).
Yeah, well. If someone was to organise a proper referendum following the precedents and conventions of the UK (aka Constitution) then we would know what the will of the people is. Until then we've only got a farcical and unconstitutional glorified opinion poll (with a non-question that would have any pollster sacked for letting get beyond the first draft).
There is an established tradition of senior politicians (and, advisers and other public servants) resigning when they get something seriously wrong. Which seems to have been ignored by the current government.
They can't resign as they consider that the country needs them.
Wrong again, eh?
No different to any other government we have had.
This is delusional.
This is not a normal government.
AFZ
If you think that a 80 seat majority is not normal these days, you may well be right.
There is an established tradition of senior politicians (and, advisers and other public servants) resigning when they get something seriously wrong. Which seems to have been ignored by the current government.
They can't resign as they consider that the country needs them.
Wrong again, eh?
No different to any other government we have had.
This is delusional.
This is not a normal government.
AFZ
If you think that a 80 seat majority is not normal these days, you may well be right.
Yeah, well. If someone was to organise a proper referendum following the precedents and conventions of the UK (aka Constitution) then we would know what the will of the people is. Until then we've only got a farcical and unconstitutional glorified opinion poll (with a non-question that would have any pollster sacked for letting get beyond the first draft).
We had a referendum approved by Parliament and the result persuaded Parliament to trigger article 50 for us to leave the EU. It was democracy in action.
Yeah, well. If someone was to organise a proper referendum following the precedents and conventions of the UK (aka Constitution) then we would know what the will of the people is. Until then we've only got a farcical and unconstitutional glorified opinion poll (with a non-question that would have any pollster sacked for letting get beyond the first draft).
We had a referendum approved by Parliament and the result persuaded Parliament to trigger article 50 for us to leave the EU. It was democracy in action.
Wasn't it also (holding the referendum) an election promise by the Conservatives in their 2015 election campaign which resulted in them gaining a majority and 48 more seats than Labour?
Yes, Parliament (rather stupidly, except for the SNP - who it could be argued have the experience of how to organise a referendum) agreed to a stupid public vote, and then to add to the stupidity decided that what could have been at best an advisory vote would be binding. How Parliament could be so stupid to ignore all precedent for public votes on single issues (both in the UK, where holding a referendum is unusual, and elsewhere where they're much more common) and organise something never before seen - especially when our Constitution (such that it is) is based on precedent and convention - is something I can't explain.
I guess we have no choice but to abide with the stupidity of politicians.
Yes, Parliament (rather stupidly, except for the SNP - who it could be argued have the experience of how to organise a referendum) .
And lose it. ;-)
But at least the vote they lost was a well-defined question. They said "we think we should do this. Should we do this?" and the people said "no". That's a perfectly reasonable, valid outcome, even though it wasn't the one that the SNP wanted.
Yes, Parliament (rather stupidly, except for the SNP - who it could be argued have the experience of how to organise a referendum) .
And lose it. ;-)
But at least the vote they lost was a well-defined question. They said "we think we should do this. Should we do this?" and the people said "no". That's a perfectly reasonable, valid outcome, even though it wasn't the one that the SNP wanted.
Brexit was a complete shambles.
I know utter shambles, political party got elected on mandate of holding referendum, won election, held referendum, referendum went way that most of the politicians didn't want, huffed and puffed, tried to delay, held another election, more chaos, eventually politician said "Oh FFS, I WILL deliver Brexit but hey lets have (yet) another election", won 80 seat majority.
So shambles indeed. But a very British shambles.
The result isn't important to my point - there can be no denying that when a party has formed two governments (2007 and 2011) with a specific policy (independence) as a mainstay of their manifesto (indeed probably the only SNP policy most people would be able to describe) that is a significant mandate for that policy. To then spend most of a Parliament (2007-2011) to engage in Parliamentary and public discussion of the issues (thus putting it back to the public in a clearer form, gaining a majority of MSPs) and then a further couple of years turning that into a defined Act approved by Parliament shows a strong commitment to the policy. Then the referendum is a simple question, effectively "do you agree with the position of Parliament?", a position outlined in a 700p document.
The contrast with the 2016 vote couldn't have been clearer. Where is the history of a political party winning large numbers of seats with a defining policy of leaving the EU, much less forming a government? When did a party form a government with that policy, and spend years examining the various options both internally and through Parliament and public consultation? When did the government put their refined policy to Parliament, undergoing the scrutiny of the democratic process, gaining the approval of Parliament? Where was the document describing what leaving the EU would mean, what future relationship with the EU that the government would seek? Without all of that work ahead of going to the people the vote could never provide any more than an indication of whether leaving the EU had significant support or not. It could never give authorisation to proceed with any particular plan of action without further democratic processes - at the least a fuller description of the new policy in the next manifesto, followed (if they get to form a government) by putting forward a bill to Parliament which will follow the normal democratic processes of scrutiny by our elected representatives ... and probably a referendum to confirm that the people support Parliament and Government. Then, and only then, could the UK government legitimately write to the European Commission to say that the UK is leaving the EU; Article 50 requires the decision to follow democratic processes, by far the biggest concession the EU has made was accepting that Mrs May had authority to write her letter to say that the UK is leaving the EU.
I'm sure you'll get over it all Alan. I mean do keep protesting and all but whatever dude.
The point is, that regardless of what you think of Brexit, the process to get there was a complete shambles.
The Prime Minister (David Cameron) agreed to hold a referendum as a sop to the Eurosceptic wing of his own party, expecting that the referendum would vote in favour of remaining in the EU and shut the Eurosceptics up. So from his point of view, it didn't really matter that "Brexit" wasn't well-defined or understood, because he thought people would support the status quo. And then he lost the referendum, had his "oh shit" moment, and did a runner, leaving the governing party facing a leadership campaign.
Which Theresa May won, and after she pulls the trigger on Brexit, she decides to call an election, because there's still no sort of consensus even within her own party about what Brexit should look like, and she's hoping that Corbyn's unpopularity will hand her a parliamentary buffer.
Except that didn't work out so well for her, so now she's trying to negotiate Brexit with both no clear idea within her own party of what Brexit means, and without a parliamentary majority at all. Which led eventually to the resignation of Mrs May, the election of Mr Johnson as leader, and yet another election, which yielded a clear parliamentary majority for Mr Johnson.
I mean do keep protesting and all but whatever dude.
Absolutely, it's called democracy. I have the duty to protest government actions I disagree with, anyone who says otherwise is an enemy of democracy. The fight to make sure my children, and everyone else, have the chances and benefits that EU membership gave me will continue - even if that's now to rejoin rather than prevent the government trampling democracy into the ground by leaving.
I mean do keep protesting and all but whatever dude.
Absolutely, it's called democracy. I have the duty to protest government actions I disagree with, anyone who says otherwise is an enemy of democracy. The fight to make sure my children, and everyone else, have the chances and benefits that EU membership gave me will continue - even if that's now to rejoin rather than prevent the government trampling democracy into the ground by leaving.
Many would argue that by NOT leaving would be trampling democracy into the ground. Obviously you and I see the situation from different perspectives and I genuinely do respect and hear the views of those who sit on the other side of the fence and I think it is a very difficult situation when (broadly) half the population think one thing and the other half think the opposite. I don't want to make this (yet another) argument about Brexit but another solution needs to be found other than continued polarisation, something along the lines of if we do leave how can this be made palatable to those who wished/wish to remain OR if we do remain/rejoin how can this be made palatable to those who wish to leave. These middle type pleas/hopes seem to be absent (or at the least less considered) from the debate.
Democracy is only as good as the most recent vote. No votes, whether referenda or elections, are immune from future changes in the public mood. There was nothing undemocratic about the lib dem plan to revoke article 50 precisely because the supreme democratic mandate in the UK is held by the house of commons and the only way the lib dems could implement their policy was to win the election. No voter should feel bound to vote a particular way because of previous votes.
Democracy is only as good as the most recent vote. No votes, whether referenda or elections, are immune from future changes in the public mood. There was nothing undemocratic about the lib dem plan to revoke article 50 precisely because the supreme democratic mandate in the UK is held by the house of commons and the only way the lib dems could implement their policy was to win the election. No voter should feel bound to vote a particular way because of previous votes.
Whether people say the lib dem revocation move was democratic or not is irrelevant. It didnt get them anywhere, but to be fair does anyone (bar a small number of folk) give a hoot what the lib dems think or even know who there leader is.
When just under half the voting electorate feel, rightly or wrongly, that their children's future has bee destroyed, and the country isbeing ruled by a bunch whose preferred strategy for trade and prosperity appears to be 'Let's go and play pirates', 'You lost, get over it' doesn't cut much ice.
I'm so fed up with the 'BUT IT WAS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!' argument that I've given up bothering to answer such a stupid question...
Dashed inconvenient when you live in a democracy and the government elected (or decision made in referendum) goes against your political affiliation or wish. I do feel for you, and all the stupid people who don't agree with you. Ignore them for the most part, but do occasionally remind them of their stupidity, complain relentlessly about those in power and the system and rest on your laurels. You've done your bit soldier.
Ok. The Conservatives won the election on a Brexit ticket. That is what happened. The fixing of Parliament my sacking those who disagree with you, the lying and trying to prorogue Parliament were all ignored for Brexit. Ok.
What you cannot say is that it was the will of the people . Our democracy doesn’t work like that. More people voted against the government than voted for. You cannot say that is the will of the people. You can only say the Conservatives won the election on a Brexit ticket.
O I agree, and what is really annoying is that very attitude of 'You lost, get over it', which (being interpreted) means 'We don't give a flying f**k for you losers...'.
Ah well. What goes round, comes round. One day, Nemesis will overtake them...not in my lifetime, probably, but eventually...
The arrogant wa**ers who 'rule' also need to remember that there are no pockets in a shroud.
When just under half the voting electorate feel, rightly or wrongly, that their children's future has bee destroyed, and the country isbeing ruled by a bunch whose preferred strategy for trade and prosperity appears to be 'Let's go and play pirates', 'You lost, get over it' doesn't cut much ice.
Quite. It's not the House Cup.
Which makes me think it would be in interesting if dangerous experiment to go into a pub in a strongly Brexit area the day after England are knocked out of the World Cup again and say it.
Yet membership or otherwise of the EU actually matters in a way the fortunes of a few overpaid sporty types never can.
Democracy is only as good as the most recent vote. No votes, whether referenda or elections, are immune from future changes in the public mood. There was nothing undemocratic about the lib dem plan to revoke article 50 precisely because the supreme democratic mandate in the UK is held by the house of commons and the only way the lib dems could implement their policy was to win the election. No voter should feel bound to vote a particular way because of previous votes.
The referendum was won with 52% of the vote. The LibDems could have won the election with far less than that.
Is it worth pointing out that "you lost, get over it" is very much not the way that politics works?
We have an election. A party wins, and forms Her Majesty's Government. By construction, the Government are going to push forward their agenda, and will generally have the votes to support it. But we don't expect the Opposition to retreat to a corner and say "yes, you're right. We lost, so we'll sit over here and be quiet." We quite explicitly expect Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to get on with opposing - to point out flaws in Government legislation, to advocate for the needs of their supporters, and generally hold the Government to account.
Democracy is only as good as the most recent vote. No votes, whether referenda or elections, are immune from future changes in the public mood. There was nothing undemocratic about the lib dem plan to revoke article 50 precisely because the supreme democratic mandate in the UK is held by the house of commons and the only way the lib dems could implement their policy was to win the election. No voter should feel bound to vote a particular way because of previous votes.
The referendum was won with 52% of the vote. The LibDems could have won the election with far less than that.
If you're complaining about our parliamentary system granting majority power to a minority vote I'm right there with you.
Democracy is only as good as the most recent vote. No votes, whether referenda or elections, are immune from future changes in the public mood. There was nothing undemocratic about the lib dem plan to revoke article 50 precisely because the supreme democratic mandate in the UK is held by the house of commons and the only way the lib dems could implement their policy was to win the election. No voter should feel bound to vote a particular way because of previous votes.
The referendum was won with 52% of the vote. The LibDems could have won the election with far less than that.
If you're complaining about our parliamentary system granting majority power to a minority vote I'm right there with you.
Not quite. My argument is that a win with less than 50% of the vote would not give them a mandate to cancel Brexit.
One of the problems is that in general elections we vote to elect MPs and not governments.
Perhaps we should have two separate votes These could take place at the same time using separate boxes.
1, To elect MPs
2. To elect the goverment for the next 5 years by a system of AV where you vote for a party.
Democracy is only as good as the most recent vote. No votes, whether referenda or elections, are immune from future changes in the public mood. There was nothing undemocratic about the lib dem plan to revoke article 50 precisely because the supreme democratic mandate in the UK is held by the house of commons and the only way the lib dems could implement their policy was to win the election. No voter should feel bound to vote a particular way because of previous votes.
The referendum was won with 52% of the vote. The LibDems could have won the election with far less than that.
If you're complaining about our parliamentary system granting majority power to a minority vote I'm right there with you.
Not quite. My argument is that a win with less than 50% of the vote would not give them a mandate to cancel Brexit.
One of the problems is that in general elections we vote to elect MPs and not governments.
Perhaps we should have two separate votes These could take place at the same time using separate boxes.
1, To elect MPs
2. To elect the goverment for the next 5 years by a system of AV where you vote for a party.
Separating the executive from the legislature is an interesting plan, but I think you'd need a wholesale restructure of the constitution to make it work. Perhaps the d'hondt system used in the Scottish Parliament might be an easier system.
Under our current system parliament is sovereign so the party elected to a majority has a mandate for its manifesto. That's how Johnson is able to drag us towards a crash out at the end of December.
Perhaps we should have two separate votes These could take place at the same time using separate boxes.
1, To elect MPs
2. To elect the goverment for the next 5 years by a system of AV where you vote for a party.
Which looks effectively like a Presidential system. Nothing wrong with that, of course, many nations have an elected President and separate elected legislature. Though, it's a system that's not without it's problems either - the biggest being balancing the powers of the two different elected bodies when the Parliamentary majority is from a different party than the President.
Perhaps we should have two separate votes These could take place at the same time using separate boxes.
1, To elect MPs
2. To elect the goverment for the next 5 years by a system of AV where you vote for a party.
Which looks effectively like a Presidential system. Nothing wrong with that, of course, many nations have an elected President and separate elected legislature. Though, it's a system that's not without it's problems either - the biggest being balancing the powers of the two different elected bodies when the Parliamentary majority is from a different party than the President.
The American prsedent election is worse than anything we have. The President should be elected on the popular votye. I would suggest that the party with the most votes would also have the most MPs
The American prsedent election is worse than anything we have. The President should be elected on the popular votye. I would suggest that the party with the most votes would also have the most MPs
Not necessarily so. In the UK, AIUI, there are electorates where there is a very large Labour majority, but very few which the Tory party holds as convincingly. Not saying that there are no Tory safe seats. So overall, there may well be a majority of Tory seats, but more votes for Labour overall.
Perhaps we should have two separate votes These could take place at the same time using separate boxes.
1, To elect MPs
2. To elect the goverment for the next 5 years by a system of AV where you vote for a party.
Which looks effectively like a Presidential system. Nothing wrong with that, of course, many nations have an elected President and separate elected legislature. Though, it's a system that's not without it's problems either - the biggest being balancing the powers of the two different elected bodies when the Parliamentary majority is from a different party than the President.
The American prsedent election is worse than anything we have. The President should be elected on the popular votye. I would suggest that the party with the most votes would also have the most MPs
AV was advocated. It's hard to be sure but getting a tory parliament with a Labour government (or vice versa) seem entirely plausible outcomes. Look back to 2010. Would we have had a lib dem government with a tory plurality in parliament? How do SNP, Plaid and NI voters go under AV?
The US electoral college and two-party system are not the only form of Presidential government, but has on occasions illustrated that you can get a Democrat President and a Republican controlled Congress and/or Senate and vice versa. I think most nations where there's an elected President (by whatever system of election) and a separately elected legislature have seen voting patterns for the two lead to different parties in control of each. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing - it gives the electorate different means to express their views on national party performance and policies, and especially on major issues if a party can't get support to elect both the president and a majority of MPs (or equivalent) then that's a good sign that on that issue the party doesn't have overwhelming support of the people.
not a huge link so hopefully it's OK. Killed off by another Tory referendum, which was the bribe to the Lib Dems for going into coalition. Needless to say, the Tories broke all but the bare letter of the coalition agreement and ensured the idea died, while the Lib Dems were enabling all but the most blindly cruel of Tory policies.
Alternative Vote. You vote in order of preference. If there is a tie then the second choices are taken into account and onward. The UK did it once. Not for Parliament though.
At the moment - @MrMandid, it's you I'm looking at - we have a system which means that I, for one, don't accept the legitimacy of any government the UK gets. I don't accept the Pangloss argument that what we've got must be the best of all possible worlds and so we all have a duty to rally round and, support it. The only administration since at least 1980 and probably earlier, that has had any claim to legitimacy was the coalition one. C. 60% of voters had at least voted for part of it.
@Telford parliamentary majorities can't depend on 'which party got the most votes'. There has to be a link between the constituencies and who gets into Parliament.
Likewise, though, a presidential election is simply choosing Mr or Ms X as the person to be president. So a system of presidential election where the candidate who got fewer votes than one of the other candidates nevertheless gets to be president means that he or she (the current example is he) has no legitimacy. Legitimacy for the US presidential election means a simple totting up the votes, possibly with AV or a run off arrangement should that produce a gap between the two biggest totals that is greater than the total number of votes cast for outside chance candidates. The electoral college delegitimises the US system. There's no sound defence for it.
Prudence, St Paul's words to the Romans and pragmatic recognition of who has the legal force behind them, means one obeys the law. One does not owe people who are in power merely by either of those means any loyalty or support.
You can tell what our so called representatives really think of the electoral system that got them there by the way they have not imposed their corrupt system on any of the devolved parliaments or assemblies. They didn't even choose it for directly elected mayors or police commissioners.
As far as Westminster is concerned, my own strong preference would be to transpose the Irish system of STV and multi-member constituencies. The Irish constitution is similar to ours. It's a sensible and oven ready system.
It also just might, IMHO, over time markedly improve co-operation and the conduct of government in the UK.
In the UK, AIUI, there are electorates where there is a very large Labour majority, but very few which the Tory party holds as convincingly. Not saying that there are no Tory safe seats. So overall, there may well be a majority of Tory seats, but more votes for Labour overall.
In recent years, the electoral bias has been on average modestly towards the Labour party (ie. Labour wins elections with a smaller share of the overall vote than the Tories need to win elections). A significant amount of this is caused by the effect of third parties (Lib Dems and SNP are the biggest effects). There are also effects of constituency size (Welsh constituencies have significantly fewer people than average, for example), as well as the issue you point out.
In the UK, AIUI, there are electorates where there is a very large Labour majority, but very few which the Tory party holds as convincingly. Not saying that there are no Tory safe seats. So overall, there may well be a majority of Tory seats, but more votes for Labour overall.
In recent years, the electoral bias has been on average modestly towards the Labour party (ie. Labour wins elections with a smaller share of the overall vote than the Tories need to win elections). A significant amount of this is caused by the effect of third parties (Lib Dems and SNP are the biggest effects). There are also effects of constituency size (Welsh constituencies have significantly fewer people than average, for example), as well as the issue you point out.
There's turnout too - Labour held safe seats generally have much lower turnout than safe tory seats, often ~20% difference.
Comments
This is delusional.
This is not a normal government.
I am intrigued by this, Lewis is obviously playing his own game here and he is clearly far more capable that Failing Grayling. But then who isn't?
However, a word of caution about Dr Lewis. He is my MP. He is a committed Brexit supporter and judging by his responses to my letters, I am not remotely impressed by him.
It does seem to be that the Government wanted a tame chair for the committee because they are worried about the Russia Report. (I think they must be because of the lengths they've gone to, to keep it out of the public domain for this long). The fact that they've failed and got a different chair is intriguing. However, I am not convinced that Dr Lewis is the answer.
OTOH, the response of the government by removing the Whip suggests they are seriously concerned.
Time will tell.
AFZ
I bet he is the kind of mp who is very clear that his constituents vote for him, rather than a party, (regardless of what most people think they are actually doing),
Probably, given his work and political history, absolutely horrified at having someone as incompetent as Grayling an intelligence chair. I can completely see why the opposition would hold their nose and vote for him. I suspect they’d have voted for any other Tory on the committee if they’d being willing to take the risk of standing, as an alternative to Grayling.
He has wrecked almost everything he has touched - not even in the sense of ideological differences, just rank incompetence. The only reason I can see for number 10 putting him in as a placeman, as opposed to any other Tory loyalist - would be to ensure the committee didn’t function.
100% agree.
More than half the voters voted for someone else, yet there they sit with an 80 seat majority. Even election time doesn't help if there is disagreement about the best alternative.
I'm so fed up with the 'BUT IT WAS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!' argument that I've given up bothering to answer such a stupid question...
According to C4, the first inkling he got that anyone might be able to stop him was when he turned over the ballot paper and realised Lewis's name was on it rather than an opposition member.
Dashed inconvenient when you live in a democracy and the government elected (or decision made in referendum) goes against your political affiliation or wish. I do feel for you, and all the stupid people who don't agree with you. Ignore them for the most part, but do occasionally remind them of their stupidity, complain relentlessly about those in power and the system and rest on your laurels. You've done your bit soldier.
Someone. Go for it dude.
And yet it happened.
We had a referendum approved by Parliament and the result persuaded Parliament to trigger article 50 for us to leave the EU. It was democracy in action.
Wasn't it also (holding the referendum) an election promise by the Conservatives in their 2015 election campaign which resulted in them gaining a majority and 48 more seats than Labour?
I guess we have no choice but to abide with the stupidity of politicians.
And lose it. ;-)
But at least the vote they lost was a well-defined question. They said "we think we should do this. Should we do this?" and the people said "no". That's a perfectly reasonable, valid outcome, even though it wasn't the one that the SNP wanted.
Brexit was a complete shambles.
I know utter shambles, political party got elected on mandate of holding referendum, won election, held referendum, referendum went way that most of the politicians didn't want, huffed and puffed, tried to delay, held another election, more chaos, eventually politician said "Oh FFS, I WILL deliver Brexit but hey lets have (yet) another election", won 80 seat majority.
So shambles indeed. But a very British shambles.
The contrast with the 2016 vote couldn't have been clearer. Where is the history of a political party winning large numbers of seats with a defining policy of leaving the EU, much less forming a government? When did a party form a government with that policy, and spend years examining the various options both internally and through Parliament and public consultation? When did the government put their refined policy to Parliament, undergoing the scrutiny of the democratic process, gaining the approval of Parliament? Where was the document describing what leaving the EU would mean, what future relationship with the EU that the government would seek? Without all of that work ahead of going to the people the vote could never provide any more than an indication of whether leaving the EU had significant support or not. It could never give authorisation to proceed with any particular plan of action without further democratic processes - at the least a fuller description of the new policy in the next manifesto, followed (if they get to form a government) by putting forward a bill to Parliament which will follow the normal democratic processes of scrutiny by our elected representatives ... and probably a referendum to confirm that the people support Parliament and Government. Then, and only then, could the UK government legitimately write to the European Commission to say that the UK is leaving the EU; Article 50 requires the decision to follow democratic processes, by far the biggest concession the EU has made was accepting that Mrs May had authority to write her letter to say that the UK is leaving the EU.
The point is, that regardless of what you think of Brexit, the process to get there was a complete shambles.
The Prime Minister (David Cameron) agreed to hold a referendum as a sop to the Eurosceptic wing of his own party, expecting that the referendum would vote in favour of remaining in the EU and shut the Eurosceptics up. So from his point of view, it didn't really matter that "Brexit" wasn't well-defined or understood, because he thought people would support the status quo. And then he lost the referendum, had his "oh shit" moment, and did a runner, leaving the governing party facing a leadership campaign.
Which Theresa May won, and after she pulls the trigger on Brexit, she decides to call an election, because there's still no sort of consensus even within her own party about what Brexit should look like, and she's hoping that Corbyn's unpopularity will hand her a parliamentary buffer.
Except that didn't work out so well for her, so now she's trying to negotiate Brexit with both no clear idea within her own party of what Brexit means, and without a parliamentary majority at all. Which led eventually to the resignation of Mrs May, the election of Mr Johnson as leader, and yet another election, which yielded a clear parliamentary majority for Mr Johnson.
In what way is that not shambolic?
Many would argue that by NOT leaving would be trampling democracy into the ground. Obviously you and I see the situation from different perspectives and I genuinely do respect and hear the views of those who sit on the other side of the fence and I think it is a very difficult situation when (broadly) half the population think one thing and the other half think the opposite. I don't want to make this (yet another) argument about Brexit but another solution needs to be found other than continued polarisation, something along the lines of if we do leave how can this be made palatable to those who wished/wish to remain OR if we do remain/rejoin how can this be made palatable to those who wish to leave. These middle type pleas/hopes seem to be absent (or at the least less considered) from the debate.
Whether people say the lib dem revocation move was democratic or not is irrelevant. It didnt get them anywhere, but to be fair does anyone (bar a small number of folk) give a hoot what the lib dems think or even know who there leader is.
Ok. The Conservatives won the election on a Brexit ticket. That is what happened. The fixing of Parliament my sacking those who disagree with you, the lying and trying to prorogue Parliament were all ignored for Brexit. Ok.
What you cannot say is that it was the will of the people . Our democracy doesn’t work like that. More people voted against the government than voted for. You cannot say that is the will of the people. You can only say the Conservatives won the election on a Brexit ticket.
Ah well. What goes round, comes round. One day, Nemesis will overtake them...not in my lifetime, probably, but eventually...
The arrogant wa**ers who 'rule' also need to remember that there are no pockets in a shroud.
Quite. It's not the House Cup.
Which makes me think it would be in interesting if dangerous experiment to go into a pub in a strongly Brexit area the day after England are knocked out of the World Cup again and say it.
Yet membership or otherwise of the EU actually matters in a way the fortunes of a few overpaid sporty types never can.
The referendum was won with 52% of the vote. The LibDems could have won the election with far less than that.
We have an election. A party wins, and forms Her Majesty's Government. By construction, the Government are going to push forward their agenda, and will generally have the votes to support it. But we don't expect the Opposition to retreat to a corner and say "yes, you're right. We lost, so we'll sit over here and be quiet." We quite explicitly expect Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to get on with opposing - to point out flaws in Government legislation, to advocate for the needs of their supporters, and generally hold the Government to account.
If you're complaining about our parliamentary system granting majority power to a minority vote I'm right there with you.
Not quite. My argument is that a win with less than 50% of the vote would not give them a mandate to cancel Brexit.
One of the problems is that in general elections we vote to elect MPs and not governments.
Perhaps we should have two separate votes These could take place at the same time using separate boxes.
1, To elect MPs
2. To elect the goverment for the next 5 years by a system of AV where you vote for a party.
Separating the executive from the legislature is an interesting plan, but I think you'd need a wholesale restructure of the constitution to make it work. Perhaps the d'hondt system used in the Scottish Parliament might be an easier system.
Under our current system parliament is sovereign so the party elected to a majority has a mandate for its manifesto. That's how Johnson is able to drag us towards a crash out at the end of December.
The American prsedent election is worse than anything we have. The President should be elected on the popular votye. I would suggest that the party with the most votes would also have the most MPs
Not necessarily so. In the UK, AIUI, there are electorates where there is a very large Labour majority, but very few which the Tory party holds as convincingly. Not saying that there are no Tory safe seats. So overall, there may well be a majority of Tory seats, but more votes for Labour overall.
AV was advocated. It's hard to be sure but getting a tory parliament with a Labour government (or vice versa) seem entirely plausible outcomes. Look back to 2010. Would we have had a lib dem government with a tory plurality in parliament? How do SNP, Plaid and NI voters go under AV?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_vote_plus
not a huge link so hopefully it's OK. Killed off by another Tory referendum, which was the bribe to the Lib Dems for going into coalition. Needless to say, the Tories broke all but the bare letter of the coalition agreement and ensured the idea died, while the Lib Dems were enabling all but the most blindly cruel of Tory policies.
Sad that it never got very far, but no surprise.
@Telford parliamentary majorities can't depend on 'which party got the most votes'. There has to be a link between the constituencies and who gets into Parliament.
Likewise, though, a presidential election is simply choosing Mr or Ms X as the person to be president. So a system of presidential election where the candidate who got fewer votes than one of the other candidates nevertheless gets to be president means that he or she (the current example is he) has no legitimacy. Legitimacy for the US presidential election means a simple totting up the votes, possibly with AV or a run off arrangement should that produce a gap between the two biggest totals that is greater than the total number of votes cast for outside chance candidates. The electoral college delegitimises the US system. There's no sound defence for it.
Prudence, St Paul's words to the Romans and pragmatic recognition of who has the legal force behind them, means one obeys the law. One does not owe people who are in power merely by either of those means any loyalty or support.
You can tell what our so called representatives really think of the electoral system that got them there by the way they have not imposed their corrupt system on any of the devolved parliaments or assemblies. They didn't even choose it for directly elected mayors or police commissioners.
As far as Westminster is concerned, my own strong preference would be to transpose the Irish system of STV and multi-member constituencies. The Irish constitution is similar to ours. It's a sensible and oven ready system.
It also just might, IMHO, over time markedly improve co-operation and the conduct of government in the UK.
In recent years, the electoral bias has been on average modestly towards the Labour party (ie. Labour wins elections with a smaller share of the overall vote than the Tories need to win elections). A significant amount of this is caused by the effect of third parties (Lib Dems and SNP are the biggest effects). There are also effects of constituency size (Welsh constituencies have significantly fewer people than average, for example), as well as the issue you point out.
There's turnout too - Labour held safe seats generally have much lower turnout than safe tory seats, often ~20% difference.
True. And it might be reasonable to assume that in an election under different rules, more of those non-voters in safe Labour seats might vote.