Boris is Boss

[Millennium]

Who sees an election as picking a 5-yr government, and who sees it as a substitute for EU-Ref 2?

Our politics is now a mess with around 40% of people and less trusting elected officials to do anything right. I don't see either of these outcomes in our immediate future. There is and should be a lot more to any coming election then thinking of it as another referendum vote.

I'm starting to despair a bit here. None of the immediate choices the government has to make look rosy, that given - the way things are being handled with Boris lying all the time etc is a complete shambles and shameless propaganda. What happened to respectable politics and public images?

[Zak33]

I'm starting to despair a bit here. None of the immediate choices the government has to make are looking rosy, that given the way things are being handled with Boris lying all the time etc is a complete shambles and shameless propaganda. What happened to respectable politics and public images?

this... with a golden frame and quality lighting

[jimborae]

I would suggest that Corbyn is frankly un-electable in the same way that Michael Foot was many, many years ago. Still I thought the same about Lying Bo-Jo and look where that got me!.

Also I don't know if this has been posted before but I only saw it recently and it really made an impact with with me. Interesting that the presenter claims to have known BO-JO many years and rates him as brilliant political mind. Which only makes Bo-Jo even more dangerous in my eyes. Disclaimer I do have a little 2nd hand experience of the security issues & law enforcement in Northern Ireland so I'm probably a bit more sensitive to this than most.

[TooNice]

Who sees an election as picking a 5-yr government, and who sees it as a substitute for EU-Ref 2?

I still see ref2 as being the most practical way to break the impasse. I get it that leavers don't like it, whether it is because of a fear they may lose it (polls.. however unreliable as they are, for the very same reason Labour wasn't the first one to back a GE after an extension was confirmed), or out of principle.. probably both though I suspect that the former weigh more.

But ultimately, the parliamentary numbers are iffy, maaaybe the WAB would've passed one way or another, but the government doesn't seem to have the patience to figure out, despite the fact it is this government that wasted a few weeks posturing and messing about with the unlawful prorogation wasting time that could've gone scrutinising the bill.

Soo, I guess we'll end up with a GE that is going to be treated as Ref2. It shouldn't be what a GE is about, but the government doesn't seem to mind as unlike polls on the ref2, it is comfortably ahead, and they've been no sign of an alliance among the opposition, and it seems that Johnson can get away with murder and significant anti-EU base will still vote for him so it's not a bad gamble. Not a guaranteed win, but a gamble I'd probably take in his shoes.

But while I think that the Tory would likely end up being the largest party, I also think that the odds of another hung parliament is greater than an outright win. So I agree with Spud1 that we'll end up in the same position in January. I think that this outcome would still serve leavers better as it would undoubtedly frustrate the EU, and some may hope that sooner than later the EU goes "No more extension kthxbye" so the the longer this goes on, the better it suits leaver's agenda I reckon (especially the -minority- who want a no-deal brexit).

(By minority, I am obviously talking about parliament minority, given that no-deal has been voted down again and again.. though I think the parliament division actually represent the UK division quite well and I find it quite likely that extends to the view on no-deal)

But if we end up with another hung parliament and the EU patience holds on, THEN maybe they will finally come to the idea ref2 is necessary after all. By then, I would've said "Yeah, should've done that a year ago instead of wasting all the time and money".

Of course I could end up being wrong and we end up with a Tory majority, and it's GG kthxbye.

[Spreadie]

I would suggest that Corbyn is frankly un-electable in the same way that Michael Foot was many, many years ago. Still I thought the same about Lying Bo-Jo and look where that got me!.

I think Corbyn is a gift to the Tories. Any serious contender on the opposition bench would have shaken things up long before now. It just astonishes me that the Labour party can offer no credible alternative to an un-electable hack who is destroying what little credibility they have left.

[TooNice]

Johnson, for reasons that eludes me, and for all his antiques has a lot of support and any opposition need to treat him as a credible threat. Not a credible person, just a credible threat. Reminds me of Trump in that sense. But the fact that Labour wasn't *crushing* a crumbling Tory party during the final months of May's reign really illustrate the failing of the Labour party as a credible opposition.

On the brexit end, it's pretty clear where the problem lies. May was viewed as a remainer, in a largely leaver's party, while Corbyn is viewed as a leaver, in a largely remainer's party, and rightfully or otherwise (I'd be willing to bet that had Johnson's deal being May's, she would've been lambasted for it), this affected their credibility. His other policies is just as divisive, but with brexit unresolved, I am not sure if it matters much for most voters now.

[Saracen999]

Our politics is now a mess with around 40% of people and less trusting elected officials to do anything right. I don't see either of these outcomes in our immediate future. There is and should be a lot more to any coming election then thinking of it as another referendum vote.

I'm starting to despair a bit here. None of the immediate choices the government has to make look rosy, that given - the way things are being handled with Boris lying all the time etc is a complete shambles and shameless propaganda. What happened to respectable politics and public images?

I utterly agree that a GE should be about much, much more than a pseudo-EU-Ref 2. I just doubt given the current situation that it will be, or even that it will be seen as being.

I've made that point countless times over many years, when being told that successive GE results vindicated our membership, that GE's are about so much more - taxation, crime, NHS, social services, welfare, foreign policy, schools, economic policy, defence, and so on. I haven't changed my mind on that. Or that a second ref will resolve much.

I just have doubts that a GE right now will be seen as much more than an attempt to resolve B-word paralysis by resolving the parliamentary gridlock.

[TeePee]

It should be, but an election now is a referendum, far more than anything else. Parties like the LidDems are really trying to capitalize on this with their shift from 'Respect referendum result' to '2nd referendum', to cancel Brexit. It's an obvious attempt at pandering to the voter from a party that should be mostly extinct after Nick Clegg's coalition failure. I think it will work well for them, and I could see them challenging Labour as an opposition party. With how badly two-party systems can be, it's nice to see a viable third party, even if they don't really stand for anything...

[Saracen999]

It should be, but an election now is a referendum, far more than anything else. Parties like the LidDems are really trying to capitalize on this with their shift from 'Respect referendum result' to '2nd referendum', to cancel Brexit. It's an obvious attempt at pandering to the voter from a party that should be mostly extinct after Nick Clegg's coalition failure. I think it will work well for them, and I could see them challenging Labour as an opposition party. With how badly two-party systems can be, it's nice to see a viable third party, even if they don't really stand for anything...

That's another reason why a GE shouldn't be seen as a referendum substitute - the permutations are too murky and inferences to hard to draw.

For instance, hypothetically, a Remain vote large enough to win a Ref, could end up being split between LD and Lab, with the result being BoJo with a significant majority, and certainly enough to put put his withdrawal agreement through, ir even a no-deal exit if any extension expires. Other such misrepresenative results could occur, including pretty much the reverse if the Brexit party split Tory voters.

GEs do not make good referendum substitutes, but that may be what we get anyway.

[TooNice]

[...]Or that a second ref will resolve much.

I just have doubts that a GE right now will be seen as much more than an attempt to resolve B-word paralysis by resolving the parliamentary gridlock.

I am not sure how a second ref couldn't resolve what a GE could, while the opposite can be true in some cases.

Legally binding second referendum:
- One side wins will definitely come up on top, and if it is binding, then it will be the end of it.
- Allows the GE that follows to be about what GE's are meant to be about.

GE (before second referendum):
- Would be treated as a proxy second referendum by many
- Could result in another hung parliament, in which case nothing would have changed, and we would probably still need that second referendum to break the impasse, and we would have wasted more time and money.

Neither would mend the divide in the country, merely break the impasse, with second ref being a surer option. Of course, once you take political calculations into account, it's no surprise that remainers would tend to lean toward second ref, and leavers toward GE (it's not just the numbers, but perhaps the hope that the EU may run out of patience before we get it sorted), but objectively, if the goal is to get an outcome over the line, then a binding second ref make a lot of sense.

Obviously, there will be other difficulties with setting up the second ref, namely the contents. I am sure leavers would want to exclude remain on the ballot, and remainers, well, no need to state the obvious. But if both sides can agree to something and make this a final battle (personally I would favour remain, deal, and no deal with a STV system as obviously I want remain on the table, but it also ensures that some kind of brexit wins if those in favour of a deal really do favour no-deal as opposed to remain for instance - it may -sound- like way when reading comments online, but this would completely shut any doubt) would force an outcome so that we can proceed to the next step. Yes, I know, it could potentially void the first referendum (as might if the Tory loses the election.. unthinkable perhaps but who knows for sure), but surely the "will of the people today" matters more than 3.5 years ago? We are getting close to the gap between two GE.

[Saracen999]

I am not sure how a second ref couldn't resolve what a GE could, while the opposite can be true in some cases.

Legally binding second referendum:
- One side wins will definitely come up on top, and if it is binding, then it will be the end of it.
- Allows the GE that follows to be about what GE's are meant to be about.

GE (before second referendum):
- Would be treated as a proxy second referendum by many
- Could result in another hung parliament, in which case nothing would have changed, and we would probably still need that second referendum to break the impasse, and we would have wasted more time and money.

Neither would mend the divide in the country, merely break the impasse, with second ref being a surer option. Of course, once you take political calculations into account, it's no surprise that remainers would tend to lean toward second ref, and leavers toward GE (it's not just the numbers, but perhaps the hope that the EU may run out of patience before we get it sorted), but objectively, if the goal is to get an outcome over the line, then a binding second ref make a lot of sense.

Obviously, there will be other difficulties with setting up the second ref, namely the contents. I am sure leavers would want to exclude remain on the ballot, and remainers, well, no need to state the obvious. But if both sides can agree to something and make this a final battle (personally I would favour remain, deal, and no deal with a STV system as obviously I want remain on the table, but it also ensures that some kind of brexit wins if those in favour of a deal really do favour no-deal as opposed to remain for instance - it may -sound- like way when reading comments online, but this would completely shut any doubt) would force an outcome so that we can proceed to the next step. Yes, I know, it could potentially void the first referendum (as might if the Tory loses the election.. unthinkable perhaps but who knows for sure), but surely the "will of the people today" matters more than 3.5 years ago? We are getting close to the gap between two GE.

At the risk of going round and round, a lot depends on what the question is that we're trying to resolve is. Is about whether se Leave or not, and how, or is it about that, but also, ery importantly, trust in democracy.

Any second referendum is going to run into credibility issues with those who point out .... we already had one, which we were told repeatedly and in writing, would be implemented. Those taking that view are not limited to Leave voters but include some Remain voters that, despite the vote not going thrir way, recognise that we had a long debate, a vote and a decision.

Yes, some (usually those determined to Remain regardless of the vote) will point out, correctly, that it was not legally binding, to which the response is as above, the government and our PM told us, repeatedly and in writing, we would imllement the result, and that moreover, this is a tactic seen again and again in referendums on the EU, get a vote against membership and the result is to keep voting until the people get it right. So par for the course, and uttetly disrespectful of the referendum.

So .... option 1 for a Ref-2. It comes back Leave? Do you really believe that those determined Remainers like the LDs or SNP will meekly give in and say OK get on with it then. Or, like the last few years, kick up every objection they can to ignore it, to block it in parliament to muddy the waters y hsnging the question, perhaps to how rather than if?

Or, option 2, we get Remain from Ref-2. Now suppose tne next GE gives BoJo or a determined Leaver, and decent majority? Since no government can bind a future government, and even a legally binding referendum act can be overturned, what's to stop such a government saying :-

- if Ref 1 wasn't deterministic, despite promises, why shouldn't we simply repeal the Ref2 Act, as entitled to do, and immediately invoke art.50 again?

Apart from EU states having a conniption fit at the notion of a do-over of the whole damn farce, what will Ref-2 then have solved?

And that's before we even consider the thorny issue of what the queztion zhould be. Because anything like the Remain favourite oc a deal that's been rejected, or Remain, will categorically be seen by one side as stacking the deck, fixing the referendum and among those, it will have zero credibility even before the vote.

Neithef a referendum nor a GE is going to fix the problem. In my opinion, nothing can. It's gone too far.

[jimborae]

It should be, but an election now is a referendum, far more than anything else. Parties like the LidDems are really trying to capitalize on this with their shift from 'Respect referendum result' to '2nd referendum', to cancel Brexit. It's an obvious attempt at pandering to the voter from a party that should be mostly extinct after Nick Clegg's coalition failure. I think it will work well for them, and I could see them challenging Labour as an opposition party. With how badly two-party systems can be, it's nice to see a viable third party, even if they don't really stand for anything...

What do you mean "Parties like the LidDems are really trying to capitalize on this with their shift from 'Respect referendum result' to '2nd referendum', to cancel Brexit." What other parties and what shift????

Lets be very clear, the Lib Dems themselves have never officially supported the "respect the referendum" viewpoint. In June 2016, a few days after the referendum, Tim Farron stated “The Liberal Democrats will fight the next election on a clear and unequivocal promise to restore British prosperity and role in the world, with the United Kingdom in the European Union, not out. If you agree with us, join us to make this happen.”

There were however the first mainstream party to call for an EU in-out referendum in 2008 and were in favour of remaining in the EU if such a referendum were to take place.

So how is that an "obvious attempt at pandering to the voter from a party that should be mostly extinct after Nick Clegg's coalition failure."?? It's probably the complete opposite and a very difficult platform to fight an election from so will probably be the the death knell of the Lib Dems in many areas of the country.

So no shift there as far as I can see.

[Galant]

Lots of talks about lies as though things are one sided. Can we all accept the reality that there's no dividing line here between parties? Lies all round is what we've had and what we've got, and it might be the second most demoralising thing about all this. It's a clear stain on the state of British politics that our supposed representatives can feel that they can lie in such a bold-faced manner and get away with it. Then again, perhaps it's the lack of honest alternatives, that all of them feel as though it doesn't matter.

I get it, it been that way since... forever(?) and likely won't change. That doesn't make it any the less dishonourable and deflating, though.

I think what makes the lies seem particularly significant with Brexit, is that the entire thing was based upon promises - a promise to provide a referendum (fulfilled), promises that this would be the only referendum on the issue, promises that it would be decisive, and the promise that the result would be respected (both an explicit and implicit promise).

One of the main reasons the Tories are more tolerable than the other parties right now, is that they are, at least, seemed concerned with honouring, and are attempting to honour, those promises (Yes, because they're future is in tatters if they don't, but nevertheless, that's the point of political promises...).

To take a slightly different angle, I will say I was impressed by Labour MP Lisa Nandy (Wigan) when, during the debate last week, she raised an intervention during Corbyn's time to make his case. She articulated a clear, concise and reasonable position that I, for one, want to hear more of. I think it's a position we need to hear more of if faith in British democracy is to be restored/built up, and to avoid us getting more and more cynical.


Here are a few clips of her speaking (just to clarify I am not a Labour supporter and I think Corbyn's desire enacted would be a disaster). I will say that if I were in Lisa's constituency, depending on the other candidates, I'd at least give serious thought to voting for her on the basis of her individual stance (though I haven't attempt to look at her voting record or opinions on other issues):

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/inde...c4?in=14:30:20

[Galant]

And word on Twitter is that Labour will be backing an election on December 12th. I'm not sure why the change of heart, Corbyn seemed set on the condition that No Deal is removed and I doubt that Boris conceded on that... but maybe he did.
Either way, it's GE time.

EDIT - From the Guardian:

"The Labour leader told the shadow cabinet: “I have consistently said that we are ready for an election and our support is subject to a no-deal Brexit being off the table.

“We have now heard from the EU that the extension of article 50 to 31 January has been confirmed, so for the next three months, our condition of taking no deal off the table has now been met."

And may I just say that as a resident of Gibraltar who DID get a vote in the referendum, none of us here will be allowed to vote in the GE. So that's one more way that this GE will NOT be a second referendum. Gibraltar voted 96% to remain (but we're only worth around 20-30k votes) so that would hurt the remain sided parties, but on the flip side, for someone like me who voted to leave, were this considered a second referendum, my initial vote would now be removed and considered irrelevant. So no, this isn't a second referendum and should not be considered as such.

[TooNice]

Those taking that view are not limited to Leave voters but include some Remain voters that, despite the vote not going thrir way, recognise that we had a long debate, a vote and a decision.

In the interest of balancing out the arguments, some leave voters have for their own reason decided they have changed their mind too. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50043549

88% remainers haven't changed their mind vs 86% leavers who haven't.

Way too close to claim that the will of the people have changed, but also different enough that we don't know if it hasn't. Point moot of course if one take the view that democracy cares not for changing views.

The whole voting till we get it right is pretty OTT IMO. This was supposed to be easy according to leave campaigners, and after nearly a GE's time (during which the PM who made the promise resigned, and we've had two PM since then), we've found out that, it wasn't and the "easiest" form of "leave" is also the one that leave campaigners did not push for in the first place. A pretty material change of circumstance I'd argue.

So .... option 1 for a Ref-2. It comes back Leave? Do you really believe that those determined Remainers like the LDs or SNP will meekly give in and say OK get on with it then. Or, like the last few years, kick up every objection they can to ignore it, to block it in parliament to muddy the waters y hsnging the question, perhaps to how rather than if?

[...]

Or, option 2, we get Remain from Ref-2. Now suppose tne next GE gives BoJo or a determined Leaver, and decent majority? Since no government can bind a future government, and even a legally binding referendum act can be overturned, what's to stop such a government saying :-

- if Ref 1 wasn't deterministic, despite promises, why shouldn't we simply repeal the Ref2 Act, as entitled to do, and immediately invoke art.50 again?


Neithef a referendum nor a GE is going to fix the problem. In my opinion, nothing can. It's gone too far.

On the first point, would it not be possible to make the referendum binding in such a way that the outcome can not be blocked once the outcome is confirmed? Mind you it would make it a double edged swords for leavers too. Personally, I've often said that I would view the second referendum as the last stand for remain, and if it doesn't go my way, then that's that. I've also said that I would be fine for a round three if remain wins the second one, and it gets trickier if it is binding, but I suspect that at this point, those who haven't picked a side won't ever will (whereas I am less convinced it was the case the first time round).

Your second point is a very good one. But I reckon that they could still do that if, say, a remain alliance win this election (however unlikely it looks) but they win the next one. I am inclined to say that a legally binding agreement holds more weight to a long retired PM's promise, but if you/don't disagree with that's fine too. Point is, it's not a scenario that the second referendum can't fix that a GE will. Yes, there may be a stronger vs weaker argument to be had, but if a sufficiently leave leaning party gets into power, then arguments point for nothing (even if A50 is revoked following a pro-remain government, if Mr. "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way" Farage or similar wins a GE 8 years from now, I have little doubt what his first action would be).

Truth to be said, if the poll I linked earlier is anything to go by, 2nd ref with multiple brexit options with STV is not exactly unfavourable towards leavers. The three leaves options combined outnumber the remain option, AND most leavers are in favour of no-deal. Win that referendum, and you not only get to say that Leave won twice in a row, but it did so shutting down the arguments that Leavers did not say what kind of Leave they preferred and if Leave really mean *any* Leave options. It definitely does a lot of clarity, and you'll get even more remainers recognise that leave has truly won (obviously it would help if the campagins are cleaner than last time, but being a legally binding referendum, I hope that it would encourage that too). And I think that shift in public opinion matter.

I think that it is likely that you are right on the last point, though I still think that a second ref has more advantages than a GE.

Still, GE it is..

[Zak33]

To take a slightly different angle, I will say I was impressed by Labour MP Lisa Nandy (Wigan) when, during the debate last week, she raised an intervention during Corbyn's time to make his case. She articulated a clear, concise and reasonable position that I, for one, want to hear more of. I think it's a position we need to hear more of if faith in British democracy is to be restored/built up, and to avoid us getting more and more cynical.


Here are a few clips of her speaking (just to clarify I am not a Labour supporter and I think Corbyn's desire enacted would be a disaster). I will say that if I were in Lisa's constituency, depending on the other candidates, I'd at least give serious thought to voting for her on the basis of her individual stance (though I haven't attempt to look at her voting record or opinions on other issues):

She won't survive the boiling pot of politics if she stays so honest.. and that's the problem.

Industry is as bad as politics. Within large companies there are top level management who lie, back stab and undermine deliberately. Politicians do the same, and sadly to NOT do that will finally result in their failure