Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Brexit Consequences Thread

WightMivvi

Old-Salt
The most I can work up is disappointment at people acting surprised when they're confronted with things that were painfully obvious, years ago (e.g. customs border between UK and NI; visas). I mean, Boris Johnson being big ambition, little competence, all bluff? No surprise there, the Garden Bridge proved that one years ago; Jennifer Arcuri was just another integrity failure, in a long line of them... Shake head, and mumble "No sh!t, Sherlock".

Being north of the border, I had practice when preparing myself for the possibility of an SNP referendum win (unfortunately, round two is looming if there are Brexit economic f***ups that can be spun into "disaster for Scotland"; the SNP will demand a rerun, and campaign to take us out of the UK and in to the EU). That, to me, was always a more likely "hell in a handcart" outcome (smaller economy, less credible claims of economic viability), but even then I was preparing myself for "them's the breaks, time to just get on with it" in the face of people getting really quite overwrought on the subject.

I also agree that Europe will continue to be a convenient whipping boy for any Westminster populist who wants to find someone to whip up hatred against, or to excuse their own screwups. I fully expect "it would have been great, if the corrupt tax-avoiders hadn't dragged us out of the EU" alongside "it would have been fantastic, but the evil lying EU was punishing us for our bravery" every time a Government Minister stands at the Despatch Box to explain an inevitable screwup, for decades to come.
It’s good to see the 95% that unites us rather than the 5% that we disagree on.

I’m always amazed at people getting worked up at the fallibility of politicians: they’re guilty until proven innocent. So Boris turns out to be a serial-cheating lying chancer? Quelle surprise. However, at the next election, we have the chance to peacefully get rid of the mofo. (Peacefully removing power holders in the EU is not an option.)

One consequence of Brexit is that it has (hopefully) stopped the momentum towards Proportional Representation, which takes power away form the electorate and gives it to party leaders.

I also agree that Brussels has been a convenient whipping boy for British politicians. “It wasn’t me, it was those nasty Europeans.” has been used so many times it’s almost a cliche. The solution I went for was to remove the whipping boy, giving UK politicians no where to hide their incompetence. A “hard” Brexit (imho) would be even more effective at exposing just how bad our politicians are as it would reduce, even more, the opportunity to blame Johnny Foreigner.

I’ll leave the Scottish question alone as that‘s a “north island” issue.
 
It’s good to see the 95% that unites us rather than the 5% that we disagree on.

I’m always amazed at people getting worked up at the fallibility of politicians: they’re guilty until proven innocent. So Boris turns out to be a serial-cheating lying chancer? Quelle surprise. However, at the next election, we have the chance to peacefully get rid of the mofo. (Peacefully removing power holders in the EU is not an option.)

One consequence of Brexit is that it has (hopefully) stopped the momentum towards Proportional Representation, which takes power away form the electorate and gives it to party leaders.

I also agree that Brussels has been a convenient whipping boy for British politicians. “It wasn’t me, it was those nasty Europeans.” has been used so many times it’s almost a cliche. The solution I went for was to remove the whipping boy, giving UK politicians no where to hide their incompetence. A “hard” Brexit (imho) would be even more effective at exposing just how bad our politicians are as it would reduce, even more, the opportunity to blame Johnny Foreigner.

I’ll leave the Scottish question alone as that‘s a “north island” issue.
@Gravelbelly has been put in his place countless times over countless posts and still isn't able to wind his neck in.
He seems to believe that the more you say things the more people will believe what you are saying has some ring of truth.
He's just another whining, repetitive remain voter that didn't know what they were voting for.
 
One consequence of Brexit is that it has (hopefully) stopped the momentum towards Proportional Representation, which takes power away form the electorate and gives it to party leaders.
Errrr... other way around, surely? Currently, Boris can do whatever he wants, on the back of 40% of the votes. As a Party Leader, he's cracked it. Blair managed it with similar levels of support. A party leader can rule for five years while ignoring the majority of the electorate.

Some form of PR means that a party leader has to negotiate with other party leaders to form a government - they can't just come up with loony ideas that appeal to their own activists (the ones who have the time and enthusiasm to go to Conference and vote on all sorts of stuff), they have to hammer out a compromise deal.

The problems with PR don't come when one party manages to actually get >50% of the vote (no real change in the outcome compared to now), they happen when one party manages to make itself the Kingmaker between another two.

Great stuff if it means that the resulting coalition can tell their respective swivel-eyed brigades to poke off, and no we won't be bringing back flogging, or insisting on yoghurt-knitting mime festivals for all; not so great if the coalition is so desperate for power that an entirely-swivel-eyed party manages to insist on it as a condition for forming a Government... (and insists on, say, denying dinosaurs or insisting on huge wedges of cash to their special interests)

...2010 to 2015 seemed to work reasonably well as a prototype PR government; Theresa May and John Major got to see the downsides...
 
Errrr... other way around, surely? Currently, Boris can do whatever he wants, on the back of 40% of the votes. As a Party Leader, he's cracked it. Blair managed it with similar levels of support. A party leader can rule for five years while ignoring the majority of the electorate.

Some form of PR means that a party leader has to negotiate with other party leaders to form a government - they can't just come up with loony ideas that appeal to their own activists (the ones who have the time and enthusiasm to go to Conference and vote on all sorts of stuff), they have to hammer out a compromise deal.

The problems with PR don't come when one party manages to actually get >50% of the vote (no real change in the outcome compared to now), they happen when one party manages to make itself the Kingmaker between another two.

Great stuff if it means that the resulting coalition can tell their respective swivel-eyed brigades to poke off, and no we won't be bringing back flogging, or insisting on yoghurt-knitting mime festivals for all; not so great if the coalition is so desperate for power that an entirely-swivel-eyed party manages to insist on it as a condition for forming a Government... (and insists on, say, denying dinosaurs or insisting on huge wedges of cash to their special interests)

...2010 to 2015 seemed to work reasonably well as a prototype PR government; Theresa May and John Major got to see the downsides...

The SNP are beholden to the Green Party, which is interesting given how reliant on oil they are to finance their dreams of independence.
 
Errrr... other way around, surely? Currently, Boris can do whatever he wants, on the back of 40% of the votes. As a Party Leader, he's cracked it. Blair managed it with similar levels of support. A party leader can rule for five years while ignoring the majority of the electorate.

Some form of PR means that a party leader has to negotiate with other party leaders to form a government - they can't just come up with loony ideas that appeal to their own activists (the ones who have the time and enthusiasm to go to Conference and vote on all sorts of stuff), they have to hammer out a compromise deal.

The problems with PR don't come when one party manages to actually get >50% of the vote (no real change in the outcome compared to now), they happen when one party manages to make itself the Kingmaker between another two.

Great stuff if it means that the resulting coalition can tell their respective swivel-eyed brigades to poke off, and no we won't be bringing back flogging, or insisting on yoghurt-knitting mime festivals for all; not so great if the coalition is so desperate for power that an entirely-swivel-eyed party manages to insist on it as a condition for forming a Government... (and insists on, say, denying dinosaurs or insisting on huge wedges of cash to their special interests)

...2010 to 2015 seemed to work reasonably well as a prototype PR government; Theresa May and John Major got to see the downsides...
I'm sure you knew what you were trying to say.
 

WightMivvi

Old-Salt
Errrr... other way around, surely? Currently, Boris can do whatever he wants, on the back of 40% of the votes. As a Party Leader, he's cracked it. Blair managed it with similar levels of support. A party leader can rule for five years while ignoring the majority of the electorate.

Some form of PR means that a party leader has to negotiate with other party leaders to form a government - they can't just come up with loony ideas that appeal to their own activists (the ones who have the time and enthusiasm to go to Conference and vote on all sorts of stuff), they have to hammer out a compromise deal.

The problems with PR don't come when one party manages to actually get >50% of the vote (no real change in the outcome compared to now), they happen when one party manages to make itself the Kingmaker between another two.

Great stuff if it means that the resulting coalition can tell their respective swivel-eyed brigades to poke off, and no we won't be bringing back flogging, or insisting on yoghurt-knitting mime festivals for all; not so great if the coalition is so desperate for power that an entirely-swivel-eyed party manages to insist on it as a condition for forming a Government... (and insists on, say, denying dinosaurs or insisting on huge wedges of cash to their special interests)

...2010 to 2015 seemed to work reasonably well as a prototype PR government; Theresa May and John Major got to see the downsides...
Who decides which candidate gets a job; the voters or the party hierarchy?

Under PR, you cannot vote in or out an individual.

Under PR, putting the wishes of the leader ahead of the needs of the constituency is better for candidates. You can be a crap MP but as long as your leader likes you, you’ll always have a job.

PR takes power away from the electorate and gives it to party leaders. That’s a bad thing.
 
Errrr... other way around, surely? Currently, Boris can do whatever he wants, on the back of 40% of the votes. As a Party Leader, he's cracked it. Blair managed it with similar levels of support. A party leader can rule for five years while ignoring the majority of the electorate.

Some form of PR means that a party leader has to negotiate with other party leaders to form a government - they can't just come up with loony ideas that appeal to their own activists (the ones who have the time and enthusiasm to go to Conference and vote on all sorts of stuff), they have to hammer out a compromise deal.

The problems with PR don't come when one party manages to actually get >50% of the vote (no real change in the outcome compared to now), they happen when one party manages to make itself the Kingmaker between another two.

Great stuff if it means that the resulting coalition can tell their respective swivel-eyed brigades to poke off, and no we won't be bringing back flogging, or insisting on yoghurt-knitting mime festivals for all; not so great if the coalition is so desperate for power that an entirely-swivel-eyed party manages to insist on it as a condition for forming a Government... (and insists on, say, denying dinosaurs or insisting on huge wedges of cash to their special interests)

...2010 to 2015 seemed to work reasonably well as a prototype PR government; Theresa May and John Major got to see the downsides...
If you mean 'listen to the electorate unless he wants to lose votes' by 'do whatever he wants.'

The only people who should decide who represents them in parliament should be 'the people'.

Rather than PR I'd have liked to see the Alternative Voting method explored.

I think a lot of the current issues with politics, worldwide, are caused by two horse races and the fact that more than two positions on a ballot mean that the majority of people are disappointed.

At least with AV you get the best outcome possible.

It's telling PR is only trotted out by loser parties who haven't realised that extreme positions or one trick ponies don't work... Yes, green party. There's a reason only Brighton has supported you enough to return a green mp. Using AV would allow the mere presence of a important local single issue to force mainstream parties to take notice and action as necessary.
 
Last edited:
If you mean 'listen to the electorate unless he wants to lose votes' by 'do whatever he wants.'

The only people who should decide who represents them in parliament should be 'the people'.

Rather than PR I'd have liked to see the Alternative Voting method explored.

I think a lot of the current issues with politics, worldwide, are caused by two horse races and the fact that more than two positions on a ballot mean that the majority of people are disappointed.

At least with AV you get the best outcome possible.
Give an example of how this works perfectly in a country with a population over 70 million people.
I'll wait.

Whilst FPTP isn't perfect, it knocks all the other methods of democracy into a cocked hat in terms of stability.
 
Give an example of how this works perfectly in a country with a population over 70 million people.
I'll wait.

Whilst FPTP isn't perfect, it knocks all the other methods of democracy into a cocked hat in terms of stability.
It doesn't matter the size sample.

Five people voting for two parties, three to two and the majority are happy.

Voting for three or more means that two votes could win the vote with three people being disappointed.


Hence Gina miller's 'tactical voting' campaign.

With AV everyone votes until a single party has earned more than 50.1% of the vote.

FPTP means that this level of approval can only be achieved with two contenders. Three parties and 66.6% could be dissatisfied, four parties means almost 75% will be disappointed.

That said, not giving out prizes to losers on school sports days would probably improve matters immensely too.
 
It doesn't matter the size sample.

Five people voting for two parties, three to two and the majority are happy.

Voting for three or more means that two votes could win the vote with three people being disappointed.


Hence Gina miller's 'tactical voting' campaign.

With AV everyone votes until a single party has earned more than 50.1% of the vote.

FPTP means that this level of approval can only be achieved with two contenders. Three parties and 66.6% could be dissatisfied, four parties means almost 75% will be disappointed.

That said, not giving out prizes to losers on school sports days would probably improve matters immensely too.
Given the current makeup of anti brexit, socialist parties that inhabit these shores, we'd have ended up with Corbyn as PM but with a handful of useless brexit etc parties that were unable to influence naff all.
Anyway. We had a referendum a few years ago and told them to ram it.
 
Given the current makeup of anti brexit, socialist parties that inhabit these shores, we'd have ended up with Corbyn as PM but with a handful of useless brexit etc parties that were unable to influence naff all.
Anyway. We had a referendum a few years ago and told them to ram it.
Given the current makeup of anti brexit, socialist parties that inhabit these shores, we'd have ended up with Corbyn as PM but with a handful of useless brexit etc parties that were unable to influence naff all.
Anyway. We had a referendum a few years ago and told them to ram it.
We could have just as easily ended up with a Brexit party mp. Or ukip.

Or the major parties, who are still likely to garner the majority of the votes, have to at least move towards what the people are feeling.

No more 'this what they should be thinking, so this is what we will do'.
 
D

Deleted 174133

Guest
Give an example of how this works perfectly in a country with a population over 70 million people.
I'll wait.

Whilst FPTP isn't perfect, it knocks all the other methods of democracy into a cocked hat in terms of stability.
It all boils down to whether you believe that a winner takes all or consensus type politics is the best form of government.

My own feelings.

PR would make less voters feel disenchanted by having at least some bums in seats in the legislature.

FTFP means you either win or lose with total or no influence during that parliament.

PR means you might get some of what you want, or at least water down the big party's worst excesses
 
It all boils down to whether you believe that a winner takes all or consensus type politics is the best form of government.

My own feelings.

PR would make less voters feel disenchanted by having at least some bums in seats in the legislature.

FTFP means you either win or lose with total or no influence during that parliament.

PR means you might get some of what you want, or at least water down the big party's worst excesses
Perhaps this line of thought is worth it's own thread.
To end my contribution here on VR/PR, if the political public feeling is great enough, then the main parties will adjust or fall down the toilet, (Hello LibDems). Isn't that what we achieved as Brexiteers "A swivel eyed bunch of no mark extremists", as I was once described by a fellow work colleague. As a long time UKIP supporter then Brexit Party supporter, we changed the face of the two party democracy we had in the UK. The Tories had no choice but to offer a referendum and then the jewel in the crown for me, having them bin all their established pro EU, self interested shiitheads (more politer words are available), setting the way for Boris.
I realise the UK spanked the EU with UKIP and Brexit party MEPs far and above what other countries had but I do not think they would succeed in the UK with their single issue politics. (Yes I know they had better manifestos but the UK are naturally suspicious of manifesto promises)
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Top