Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Malthusian

Arklight wrote: »

It's not really that fascistic is it?

Yes it is. I'm surprised you're in favour of this blatant transphobia.

It is society telling you that your gender was decided at birth, that no ambiguity is permitted - people have to know your gender before they've even seen your face - and it's illegal to even acknowledge that gender may be fluid through a child's name. It stamps the label "Male" or "Female" on you at birth. There is no other point to such a law whatsoever.

The UK doesn't allow you to give your kids stupid names that will make people make fun of them either.

Why would you make fun of someone for being called Ashley, Evelyn or Kaoru?

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

How is supporting the most damaging change to the UK in our lifetimes, not a party political issue?

People want change that's the clear message. Politicians are out of touch on a whole range of issues. Voting should be mandatory across the whole of Europe.

There's a huge amount of sitting on hands.

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

People want change that's the clear message. Politicians are out of touch on a whole range of issues. Voting should be mandatory across the whole of Europe.

There's a huge amount of sitting on hands.

I agree that voting should be mandatory. Turnout is pretty high for EU elections though.

There isn't a clear message from the results in the UK, the votes for parties that campaigned for leave at any cost and the parties that campaigned for remain are pretty much equal. We can't know what the people who didn't desert labour and conservatives think, I'm not even sure why they turned out to be honest.

I'm disappointed that brexit party didn't do better, if they could get more than 50% of the result then they would have a point. As it is, they only have 1/3 of the vote and it's basically the ukip vote (which has evaporated now people have woken up to them being a xenophobic party, we'll have to see how long it takes them a second time). They're pretending that they now have a mandate for WTO terms, but really the numbers don't support that.

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

I agree that voting should be mandatory. Turnout is pretty high for EU elections though.

There isn't a clear message from the results in the UK, the votes for parties that campaigned for leave at any cost and the parties that campaigned for remain are pretty much equal. We can't know what the people who didn't desert labour and conservatives think, I'm not even sure why they turned out to be honest.

I'm disappointed that brexit party didn't do better, if they could get more than 50% of the result then they would have a point. As it is, they only have 1/3 of the vote and it's basically the ukip vote (which has evaporated now people have woken up to them being a xenophobic party, we'll have to see how long it takes them a second time). They're pretending that they now have a mandate for WTO terms, but really the numbers don't support that.

UK turnout is 37%.

In comparison 2017 GE was 68%.

Main parties need to be clear in their views before any GE.

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

UK turnout is 37%.

2014 turnout was 35.4% and 2009 was 34.5% I'm not saying it's great, but I think it's the highest ever. Anyone claiming that people stayed home as a protest vote are either wrong or lying.

I like the australian system where you get fined if you don't turn up to vote.

Although it's a pity that democracy is fatally flawed as you can easily use psychology to groom people & we don't take protecting voters seriously from that enough & accept that it's just the way it is.

Nigel Farages offer of the brexit party fighting a GE if we don't leave the EU in october sounds pretty good, I'd support that. More democracy is better than less when you consider the limitations of democracy.

It annoys me that people in poltics can sit with a straight face and claim that 11.84% (32% of 37%) demonstrates the will of the people to leave at any cost. It undermines them completely, yet their supporters will lap it up because it is what they want to hear. If I actually wanted to leave the EU then I wouldn't accept the result as a clear democratic sign.

Don't trust anyone who claims it is, they are totally dishonest & if they are dishonest about this then it's very likely they are dishonest about everything.

Moby

Strong Brexit (UKIP and BXP) 34%

Strong remain 40% (Chuk, Green, Lib Dem. Plaid, SNP)

Conservatives 9%

Labour 15%....


Very difficult to read much from a 37% turnout.
Pleasantly surprised that the populist surge on the continent hasn't materialised though. The Greens have done particularly well in Germany and France! A big win for the socialists in Spain, with the far right going backwards, and the news from the Netherlands is also poor for the extreme right.

BikingBud

phillw wrote: »

2014 turnout was 35.4% and 2009 was 34.5% I'm not saying it's great, but I think it's the highest ever.

I like the australian system where you get fined if you don't turn up to vote.

Although it's a pity that democracy is fatally flawed as you can easily use psychology to groom people & we don't take protecting voters seriously from that enough & accept that it's just the way it is.

Nigel Farages offer of the brexit party fighting a GE if we don't leave the EU in october sounds pretty good, I'd support that. More democracy is better than less when you consider the limitations of democracy.

It annoys me that people in poltics can sit with a straight face and claim that 11.84% (32% of 37%) demonstrates the will of the people to leave at any cost. It undermines them completely, yet their supporters will lap it up because it is what they want to hear. If I actually wanted to leave the EU then I wouldn't accept the result as a clear democratic sign.

Don't trust anyone who claims it is, they are totally dishonest & if they are dishonest about this then it's very likely they are dishonest about everything.

Still in denial fo the democratic process I see.

You may recall a response to your post on another thread that you see to have ignored:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75847272&postcount=107

I'll copy it here for your to assess again:

So those that understand their role and the benefits of democracy vote.

Those that don't vote complain about being disenfranchised.

Why is that a problem?

Of whose making?

And who is best placed to address it?

BTW what is grooming voters, is that tempting them with silvery tongues like the Bene Gessirit?

Democracy is broken why would more of it be any better unless it is rebuilt from basic principles and the confidence of the electorate is restored?

BikingBud

Italian League leads polls with 34% - intent to disrupt significant gains.

France National Rally - Le Pen slight lead

Germany concern over Angela Merkel's future

People throughout Europe calling out for change!

Moby

BikingBud wrote: »

Democracy is broken why would more it be any better unless it is rebuilt from basic principles and the confidence of the electorate is rested?

Come again?

BikingBud

Moby wrote: »

Come again?

After PhilW's suggestion:

More democracy is better than less when you consider the limitations of democracy.

Democracy is broken (Parliament has spectacularly failed to deliver the wishes of the electorate). Therefore one has to ask why more of a broken system would be any better.

The failings of the party political system within Parliament needs to be addressed especially where there is clear conflict between what Parliament has been tasked with and what they may decide from their privileged and self serving perspective.

What is the value of that currently flawed and failed democratic process unless it is rebuilt from basic principles and the confidence of the electorate is restored? The system needs rebuilding via electoral reform.

Is that easier for you to understand?