BoJo not standing for PM

paulmapp8306

Clarky said:

paulmapp8306 said:

Bogwhoppit said:

Three points.


iii) Cameron is solely responsible for this mess, no one else...yet all this political posturing seems to be letting the biggest failure in British politics [Cameron] of the hook.

I know you have no love of Cameron - but why exactly?  He didnt want a referendum, but was forced into one really.  He campaigned to stay in - how is he responsible for the country voting out?

I think the remain camp did play their part in the leave vote..

rather than focusing on what we stand to gain by being in, there was too much in the way of threats and fear

I think they just over egg'd it

and people don't like threats from anyone.. especially the likes of Cameron, his posse, Obama, Juncker and the rest of the EU etc..

it just makes for a siege / screw you mentality

I think your absolutely right - but that would surly have come from the stratogists not the figureheads? splitting hairs maybe I guess.

skankdelvar

My little daughter Athena came to me today, crying her eyes out. 'I'm frightened of the future, Mummy' she wailed. 'I don't understand what's happening'.

I tried to explain:

'Well, darling,' I said 'Michael Gove went into the meeting with Boris and realised that his Brexit comrade had been replaced by a human-alien hybrid grown in laboratories funded by Rupert Murdoch. But Murdoch - er - lost control of the fake-Boris and it had plans to renege on Brexit so Murdoch used his laser-eyes to take over Gove's brain and make him stop Boris.

So he did and now Murdoch will take over the world and - er - destroy everything by getting those awful leave-voting poor people to rise up and eat our brains. I regret that Great-Uncle Jeremy won't be there to save us because Murdoch's Angela Eagle hybrid will be turning the Labour party into - er - UKIP.

So that's ballet lessons cancelled for the foreseeable future'.

I want my country back. 

Cirrus

jpfamps;1133204" said:

Party leaders aren't voted for by the electorate.

This is pretty often pointed out in these discussions, but I think it's fair to say that most people who vote do take who the prime minister might be into account as they vote for their constituency MP. I'd maybe even go so far as to say that it's of more importance to have the potential PM on your mind than the MPs on your ballet paper as you tick the box, since your MP is typically going to be toeing the party line anyway in parliamentary votes.

KKJale

I'm told the rumour in Westminster today is that the Gove camp have some proper, juicy dirt on Boris.

So he fell on his sword to stop it coming out. 

WezV

just about sums it up

paulmapp8306

Cirrus said:

jpfamps;1133204" said:

Party leaders aren't voted for by the electorate.

This is pretty often pointed out in these discussions, but I think it's fair to say that most people who vote do take who the prime minister might be into account as they vote for their constituency MP. I'd maybe even go so far as to say that it's of more importance to have the potential PM on your mind than the MPs on your ballet paper as you tick the box, since your MP is typically going to be toeing the party line anyway in parliamentary votes.

Quite possibly.  They shouldnt though.  In fact, they shouldnt even take the "colour" of the party into account IMO.  You should vote for the candidate you think will represent your views the best, and do the best for your area regardless of his/her party or the leader thereof.  

I have always followed that, and have voted for red, blue and yellow candidates in my time..  I am however in a minority who actually think the person you vote for in you area is actually important. 

ICBM

paulmapp8306 said:

I know you have no love of Cameron - but why exactly?  He didnt want a referendum, but was forced into one really.  He campaigned to stay in - how is he responsible for the country voting out?

Because he was so arrogant in thinking that he would win that he didn't bother to set the rules of the referendum correctly to ensure he would. Having it as a simple majority of votes cast left him wide open to defeat.

He also made the mistake of saying that although it wasn't binding, he did not make that explicitly clear - in fact he said the government would honour the result. Now Parliament will be seen as going against the will of the people if they refuse to act on it, even though they entirely legally can.

Pure incompetence.

And then on top of that his campaigning was disastrous - every time he opened his mouth, Leave gained a point or two.

So yes, he is almost entirely to blame. Others are partly so but without Cameron's ineptitude none of it would have mattered.

nickb_boy

What if for one incredibly unlikely event Boris has not thought of himself first and actually considered the ramifications for the UK public. He may well have not been solely thinking that he didn't want to have the legacy and responsibility of being the one to deliver the article 50 to the EU.

What if the knowledge he would never win the internal conservative approval and be successful in gaining the PM position was considered for other reasons than denting his ego. The consequence of how this would go down by the 52% of the UK who saw him as the leader of the leave campaign that they'd voted for to exit the EU. Only for the motion to be rejected by a process that this voting public could not control.

Whilst the backlash to the leave announcement has mainly been met with confrontation and disbelief by the remain supporters (particularly on social media), there has been no significant accounts of large action disruption, violent protest or rioting. The potential for this to all change if members of the public see it as their vote being overturned by the conservative party sparking an even greater divide through the UK.

He may well have been pushed, but by Boris standing down from the front running himself, it may well have minimised any repercussions of the group of leave voters, who are now reveling in the belief that there is democracy, only to have this illusion whipped from under them as Boris is ejected by the bureaucratic system.

Who knows, maybe Boris actually had a plan for after the event this week!

Chalky

Cirrus;1133422" said:

jpfamps;1133204" said:Party leaders aren't voted for by the electorate.



This is pretty often pointed out in these discussions, but I think it's fair to say that most people who vote do take who the prime minister might be into account as they vote for their constituency MP. I'd maybe even go so far as to say that it's of more importance to have the potential PM on your mind than the MPs on your ballet paper as you tick the box, since your MP is typically going to be toeing the party line anyway in parliamentary votes.

Only the ones on the front benches get the chance to actually "toe the line"

See what I did there? )

viz

^ Oh that's brilliant!!!!!

paulmapp8306

ICBM said:

paulmapp8306 said:

I know you have no love of Cameron - but why exactly?  He didnt want a referendum, but was forced into one really.  He campaigned to stay in - how is he responsible for the country voting out?

Because he was so arrogant in thinking that he would win that he didn't bother to set the rules of the referendum correctly to ensure he would. Having it as a simple majority of votes cast left him wide open to defeat.

He also made the mistake of saying that although it wasn't binding, he did not make that explicitly clear - in fact he said the government would honour the result. Now Parliament will be seen as going against the will of the people if they refuse to act on it, even though they entirely legally can.

Pure incompetence.

And then on top of that his campaigning was disastrous - every time he opened his mouth, Leave gained a point or two.

So yes, he is almost entirely to blame. Others are partly so but without Cameron's ineptitude none of it would have mattered.

I agree with that I guess - though surly fixing the criterea to make sure you win it pretty corrupt though isnt it.

ICBM

paulmapp8306 said:

I agree with that I guess - though surly fixing the criterea to make sure you win it pretty corrupt though isnt it.

No, it's sensible to avoid being caught by exactly this sort of scenario. It doesn't mean you're rigging it against a real majority wanting change.

When James Callaghan held the first referendum on Scottish Devolution in 1979, the bar was that at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour. That's actually a *low* bar for a decision on constitutional change, in my opinion - but it would have also given a null result this time, as it did then. Callaghan hardly has a reputation as a great PM either - but he was clearly less of a fool than Cameron.

Or you could set the bar at, say, 66% of votes cast. Or any other combination that doesn't allow a minority to 'win' by a narrow margin due to a low turnout - and in my opinion 72% *is* a low turnout for a vote of this importance, regardless that it's higher than a typical general election.

In my opinion, the bar here should have been a simple majority of the whole electorate, not the vote cast. If that had happened and the result had been Leave then I would have been happy to accept it with no argument - because then it would be a true reflection of what the majority want, no more and no less.

paulmapp8306

I understand the argument - but I dont think you can ONLY judge on those opinions registered - those that didnt vote could all have voted remain, all voted leave, or had the same split as we saw.  You cannot guess, and they all had the chance to vote.  Those that didnt - if they dont like the result, have themselves to blame.

I also dont agree with the argument that you need a clear majority for a majority change - the majority is the majority even if its 0.1%,  

To make the bar a majority of all those eligible to vote weighs the bar in favour of no change. It is just that - a weighting and it has no place in a democracy IMO.  Would you have been happy if the bar was set at 50% of those eligible to vote must vote to remain in order for us to do so - and for the default to be leave? Thats the same thing.  It doesn matter that its a major change or not.  Think of it as not voting if we change or not - but as it was, voting to stay or leave.  Black or white.  Heads or tales.

Im probably not making myself clear as usual.  Consider the following.

You have a Town Hall painted White.  Its needs a pain job.  You ask the towns folk "Should we paint it Red or green".  It is fair to set that bar so that you need 50% or more of the townspeople to express an opinion, REd or Green - if you dont get that it stays white.  That is perfectly fair and understandable, as the choice given could not be agreed on by a majority - so NEITHER get what they want.

What we have here is a house painted Red already - and your saying that unless 50% of the townsfolk say paint it Green its staying red - but ignoring the 10% of the town away on holiday and the 5% away on business.  That is undemocratic as one side gets what it wants, and the result is weighted.

 

Chalky

No @ICBM because you are rigging in favour of the status quo, i.e. Remain.

And when in the UK did a vote last get a majority of the electorate by your criteria?

ICBM

Chalky said:

No @ICBM because you are rigging in favour of the status quo, i.e. Remain.

Rightly so, because the status quo can be assumed to be acceptable to those who do not actively choose change. It's not an equal proposition.

Chalky said:

And when in the UK did a vote last get a majority of the electorate by your criteria?

Never, in a referendum. Which does not make it any less valid.

A majority of the electorate is the only way you can be *sure* that change is wanted.

richardhomer

ICBM;1133797" said:

A majority of the electorate is the only way you can be *sure* that change is wanted.

Spot on.

I was talking to a friend today who's mother voted leave as she saw the referendum as an opportunity to register a 'protest! vote against the incumbent government.

She pointed out to her mother that it was not the same as a General Election - where you can bloody a party's nose and vote for them again in four or five year's time - this was a one-way ticket.

It seems to me that the result is fundamentally unsound - and cannot be relied upon given the magnitude of change that will occur as a result of it.

RandallFlagg

Someone put a brown envelope containing 'those' pictures, under his door, with a note suggesting he may want to reconsider. One can only guess the content of those pics, perhaps involving Bozzer, some farm animals and Cameron maybe?

chillidoggy

Maybe it wasn't CMD with a pigs head after all, eh?

Teetonetal

ICBM said:

Chalky said:

No @ICBM because you are rigging in favour of the status quo, i.e. Remain.

Rightly so, because the status quo can be assumed to be acceptable to those who do not actively choose change. It's not an equal proposition.

Chalky said:

And when in the UK did a vote last get a majority of the electorate by your criteria?

Never, in a referendum. Which does not make it any less valid.

A majority of the electorate is the only way you can be *sure* that change is wanted.

See, I disagree - that system make a mockery of democracy and tells people if you can't be bothered to vote, it doesn't matter as the status quo is maintained and encourages a low turn out. This referendum was fair, and told people if you care, then vote. I know a few people who have suddenly had a big wake up call to voting.

You are suggesting a system that legislates for people's laziness and apathy and I feel that such a system would have led Farage and co to be even more vitriolic than now ( a losing majority) and socially the country would be worse off than it is now... 

ICBM

It's hard to imagine that any other outcome would be worse than the utter chaos that's going on now.

I completely disagree that requiring a majority for change is a mockery of democracy.

In my opinion it's exactly the idea that the largest minority rules that's got this country into the mess it's been in for decades, covering everything from who forms the government (typically voted for by around 35-40% under our FPTP system) to the way the trade unions became politicised by determined minorities.

Allowing the minority to rule the majority is expressly not democracy.