[UK] General Election 2017 Superthread

[Dumb Ideologies]

Time limits on referenda is just another codified constitution type concept, that will inevitably have to be checked by the supreme court and so moves us more towards that kind of model. I'm not massively against it - codifying Britain's constitution can be done in an afternoon by someone dedicated enough. The problem is that people would try to introduce new things into it (like referenda time limits) and that's how the battle would last for years and years. I don't see the point, personally. Let Governments rule by what they can feasibly accomplish and not by what is strictly limited by arbitrary times.

Codification of Britain's constitution isn't even necessary. We can do this via parliamentary leglisation and simply set the 2/3 requirement there, like with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.

We should rent Scotland out to the Chinese on a 99-year lease in return for having Hong Kong back.

Not a good attitude mate - British unionism > English nationalism.

The whiny mating call of the ginger dwarf from the north echoes repeatedly through the forests but public opinion is very much against legalized hunting. Why not outsource the problem?

[The Wolfiad]

it's not about sucking it up. it's about you not handing the SNP a golden chalice on the chance this all happens again.

the entire current scenario was never supposed to happen because labour was supposed to ensure it never did, so don't mind me if i take the liberty of, how do i put it diplomatically, completely ignoring everything that labour says on the issue.

I missed the part about you going unionist.

that sounds like it'll get a bit silly

If it works, it works. I mean, I don't know if it'll work or not. I'm not a lawyer well versed in the constitution for one, but I'm sure one could find a way. Regardless, there needs to be some sort of lock established on further referendums similar to other countries that is able to work in harmony with Britain's uncodified constitution and the arrangement with the devolved arrangements.

[The Wolfiad]

Clearly we should only have elections every 25 years then.

Explain your reasoning.

[The Wolfiad]

Codification of Britain's constitution isn't even necessary. We can do this via parliamentary leglisation and simply set the 2/3 requirement there, like with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.


Not a good attitude mate - British unionism > English nationalism.

The whiny mating call of the ginger dwarf from the north echoes repeatedly through the forests but public opinion is very much against legalized hunting. Why not outsource the problem?

What Scotland needs is a John de Warenne, it just doesn't deserve it.

[Souseiseki]

it's not about sucking it up. it's about you not handing the SNP a golden chalice on the chance this all happens again.

the entire current scenario was never supposed to happen because labour was supposed to ensure it never did, so don't mind me if i take the liberty of, how do i put it diplomatically, completely ignoring everything that labour says on the issue.

I missed the part about you going unionist.

it is a complicated issue. whether or not i am nationalist or unionist changes with the ages, but regardless of what position i have there is a part of me that still screams a little when i see unionists completely fucking up.

If it works, it works. I mean, I don't know if it'll work or not. I'm not a lawyer well versed in the constitution for one, but I'm sure one could find a way. Regardless, there needs to be some sort of lock established on further referendums similar to other countries that is able to work in harmony with Britain's uncodified constitution and the arrangement with the devolved arrangements.

well shit if we're going down this route then britain's uncodified constitution and how we handle it is dumb as shit and the entire thing needs massively reformed.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The whiny mating call of the ginger dwarf from the north echoes repeatedly through the forests but public opinion is very much against legalized hunting. Why not outsource the problem?

What Scotland needs is a John de Warenne, it just doesn't deserve it.

Salmond walks into Sturgeon's office one day for a meeting, finds a post-it note with "bored now, joining UKIP"

[Frank Zipper]

So if Corbyn loses the election, which looks likely, has he done enough to stay on as Labour leader?

I think he has had rather a good campaign so he should stay leader. But he needs to ditch Diane Abbott.

[The Wolfiad]

So if Corbyn loses the election, which looks likely, has he done enough to stay on as Labour leader?

I think he has had rather a good campaign so he should stay leader. But he needs to ditch Diane Abbott.

I'm predicting a final outcome of 170-210. Len McCluskey's target is 200+ seats.

[Frank Zipper]

Len McCluskey is an arse.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

We should rent Scotland out to the Chinese on a 99-year lease in return for having Hong Kong back.

Now there is a good idea.

[Napkiraly]

Clearly we should only have elections every 25 years then.

Switzerland is not the model that would work particularly well for the UK - not to mention iirc, Switzerland has a rather low turnout for many referendums and that is with a long cultural and political history supporting their referendum prone ways. In the UK it'd just lead to immense voter fatigue rather fast. Deciding on whether or not to remain in the UK, and other such similar matters, should not be dictated on by the whims and fates of a few years. What if independence is sought after three bad years of economic performance only for the country to bounce back again after two years that polls show drop support for independence?

[The Wolfiad]

Clearly we should only have elections every 25 years then.

Switzerland is not the model that would work particularly well for the UK - not to mention iirc, Switzerland has a rather low turnout for many referendums and that is with a long cultural and political history supporting their referendum prone ways. In the UK it'd just lead to immense voter fatigue rather fast. Deciding on whether or not to remain in the UK, and other such similar matters, should not be dictated on by the whims and fates of a few years. What if independence is sought after three bad years of economic performance only for the country to bounce back again after two years that polls show drop support for independence?

Yeah, referendums need to be something where you need to consider what you want from the next 25-50 or so years. Especially if one answer means you basically can't change the course of the outcome (Scottish independence).

[Napkiraly]

Switzerland is not the model that would work particularly well for the UK - not to mention iirc, Switzerland has a rather low turnout for many referendums and that is with a long cultural and political history supporting their referendum prone ways. In the UK it'd just lead to immense voter fatigue rather fast. Deciding on whether or not to remain in the UK, and other such similar matters, should not be dictated on by the whims and fates of a few years. What if independence is sought after three bad years of economic performance only for the country to bounce back again after two years that polls show drop support for independence?

Yeah, referendums need to be something where you need to consider what you want from the next 25-50 or so years. Especially if one answer means you basically can't change the course of the outcome (Scottish independence).

Precisely. Not to mention I highly doubt the SNP would allow a new referendum every five years on the issue of rejoining the UK.

[Ifreann]

it's not about sucking it up. it's about you not handing the SNP a golden chalice on the chance this all happens again.

the entire current scenario was never supposed to happen because labour was supposed to ensure it never did, so don't mind me if i take the liberty of, how do i put it diplomatically, completely ignoring everything that labour says on the issue.

I missed the part about you going unionist.

that sounds like it'll get a bit silly

If it works, it works. I mean, I don't know if it'll work or not. I'm not a lawyer well versed in the constitution for one, but I'm sure one could find a way. Regardless, there needs to be some sort of lock established on further referendums similar to other countries that is able to work in harmony with Britain's uncodified constitution and the arrangement with the devolved arrangements.

Do other countries have restrictions on how often they can hold referenda on the same question?

[Imperializt Russia]

So, I was googling Diane Abbott to see when she was first elected as an MP (1987, if you're interested).
And I noticed something odd at the top of the page...

Yes, because I googled for something related to Labour, the Tories have bought out adspace on Google in order to publish what is effectively Corbyn smears.

Here is the list, with "sources" included:
https://www.conservatives.com/corbynfacts?gclid=CjwKEAjwpdnJBRC4hcTFtc6fwEkSJABwupNiK36bqJxTHehav2bIHuzD2lQzbHpY3ZNovRAq7vf9SRoC6Brw_wcB

And of course, all those statements are either out of context or out of date.
"He wants to abolish our armed forces!"
Well, no, he's never advocated that.
"He wants to abolish Trident!"
Well he does, but he's submitted the manifesto to the party, and the party decided it wanted to renew Trident, so it's being renewed. He also ruled out unilateral disarmament, and simply wants to push for all nuclear states to disarm.
Much like how Farron's stance on how homosexuality might be a sin is basically irrelevant, because his personal idea and party policy aren't the same thing.

And I was actually tempted to try and see where I could make an official complaint about this conduct.
Electoral Commission Guidance for Candidates and Agents (December 2016) says,

During the Campaign you must not:
Knowingly make a false statement about the personal
character of a candidate.
...

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/141788/Part-4-The-campaign-LGEW.pdf

It also says that allegations of this nature are outside of the Electoral Commission's remit, and should be reported to the police. Googling around, I stumbled across electoral malpractice guidance for police issued by the College of Policing:

False statement of fact as to candidate:
It is an illegal practice for a person to make or publish any false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct (rather than the political character or conduct) of a candidate, before or during an election, for the purpose of affecting the return of the candidate at the election unless they can show that they had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, the statement to be true – section 106 RPA 1983.

Bolded mine.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/policing-elections/investigating-electoral-malpractice/#seriousness-of-the-allegation

So if false statements of the personal character of a candidate (ie, Corbyn is a paedophile) are not permitted, why are knowingly false statements of the political character of a candidate permitted? This strikes me as a colossal oversight which straight up permits lying about candidates.
It also includes the defence of "well, I thought it was true", which obviously the Tories could use to cover that article, by "well, we sourced all the comments".

[Calladan]

Time limits on referenda is just another codified constitution type concept, that will inevitably have to be checked by the supreme court and so moves us more towards that kind of model. I'm not massively against it - codifying Britain's constitution can be done in an afternoon by someone dedicated enough. The problem is that people would try to introduce new things into it (like referenda time limits) and that's how the battle would last for years and years. I don't see the point, personally. Let Governments rule by what they can feasibly accomplish and not by what is strictly limited by arbitrary times.

Codification of Britain's constitution isn't even necessary. We can do this via parliamentary leglisation and simply set the 2/3 requirement there, like with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.

We should rent Scotland out to the Chinese on a 99-year lease in return for having Hong Kong back.

Not a good attitude mate - British unionism > English nationalism.

British Unionism is an oxymoron.

[Chestaan]

So, I was googling Diane Abbott to see when she was first elected as an MP (1987, if you're interested).
And I noticed something odd at the top of the page...
(Image)
Yes, because I googled for something related to Labour, the Tories have bought out adspace on Google in order to publish what is effectively Corbyn smears.

Here is the list, with "sources" included:
https://www.conservatives.com/corbynfacts?gclid=CjwKEAjwpdnJBRC4hcTFtc6fwEkSJABwupNiK36bqJxTHehav2bIHuzD2lQzbHpY3ZNovRAq7vf9SRoC6Brw_wcB

And of course, all those statements are either out of context or out of date.
"He wants to abolish our armed forces!"
Well, no, he's never advocated that.
"He wants to abolish Trident!"
Well he does, but he's submitted the manifesto to the party, and the party decided it wanted to renew Trident, so it's being renewed. He also ruled out unilateral disarmament, and simply wants to push for all nuclear states to disarm.
Much like how Farron's stance on how homosexuality might be a sin is basically irrelevant, because his personal idea and party policy aren't the same thing.

And I was actually tempted to try and see where I could make an official complaint about this conduct.
Electoral Commission Guidance for Candidates and Agents (December 2016) says,

During the Campaign you must not:
Knowingly make a false statement about the personal
character of a candidate.
...

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/141788/Part-4-The-campaign-LGEW.pdf

It also says that allegations of this nature are outside of the Electoral Commission's remit, and should be reported to the police. Googling around, I stumbled across electoral malpractice guidance for police issued by the College of Policing:

False statement of fact as to candidate:
It is an illegal practice for a person to make or publish any false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct (rather than the political character or conduct) of a candidate, before or during an election, for the purpose of affecting the return of the candidate at the election unless they can show that they had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, the statement to be true – section 106 RPA 1983.

Bolded mine.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/policing-elections/investigating-electoral-malpractice/#seriousness-of-the-allegation

So if false statements of the personal character of a candidate (ie, Corbyn is a paedophile) are not permitted, why are knowingly false statements of the political character of a candidate permitted? This strikes me as a colossal oversight which straight up permits lying about candidates.
It also includes the defence of "well, I thought it was true", which obviously the Tories could use to cover that article, by "well, we sourced all the comments".

There's also something unsettling about the Tories buying up spaces on google. I don't like the idea of one view being pushed to the top of the page because someone paid for it.

[Salandriagado]

what if the party with the most votes isn't the one that won the most seats? :thinking:

Allocate overhang seats until a majority is reached.

That's only guaranteed to succeed if you have no upper bound on the number of MPs, and it might not be even then, now I think about it.

[Ifreann]

Allocate overhang seats until a majority is reached.

That's only guaranteed to succeed if you have no upper bound on the number of MPs, and it might not be even then, now I think about it.

Infinite MPs.

[Salandriagado]

The seats are allocated in a more proportional manner than FPTP, how is that possibly bad for democracy?

If it's bad for democracy, why was electoral reform rejected in a referendum in 2011 where there were only two choices - Yes to electoral reform, No to electoral reform? FPTP is democratically supported by the British people.

If the UK voted in a dictator for life, would that be good for democracy? Would holding elections suddenly be anti-democratic?

parliament can do whatever it wants and has passed things it knows wouldn't pass a referendum many a time. just for reference.

you know what else is kinda disrespectful to the will of the people? giving people that only get 35% of the vote a majority. not sure why you're suddenly so angry at the thought of something happening despite the majority not voting for it.

It's democratic because the said winner got the most seats in parliament, which means that more local areas support that party as opposed to the other one .

"Local areas" have neither opinions nor rights. People have those things.

are you 100% sure you're not deliberately avoiding the question?

I'm sure. There's no moral obligation for me not to, because I genuinely cba to provide more than one-liners rn.

Fuck off and stop spamming the thread with inane bullshit then?

Because stupid people have the same right to a say in how they are governed as anyone else.

Oh really? Superb, they've expressed their opinion already so that's that.

Consent can be revoked at any time.

I am actually genuinely interested in why you personally support it. If for no other reason than that you probably have reasons for supporting it that I have missed.

I'll write it up on a factbook because I don't want to have to deal with the circlejerk that always happens every time I advocate for FPTP.

Like seriously, most of the time I'm just sparring with one person when I'm discussing an issue or two, but FPTP and bam the whole of NSG (literally, virtually no one bar the Tories on this thread support FPTP along with the Republicans on the the US-related thread - and even they can't be arsed to defend it most of the time).

When the only two groups that agree with you are the Tories and the Republicans, it's probably time to reconsider whether your opinion is sane or not.

Probably because even they realise that the only argument for it is "It lets my side win".

This assumption is one of my reasons why I wish I was like Angleter or Nihil and didn't bother. Debate involves respect for the other side, not assuming that it is cynical.

It's not an assumption when that is literally the argument presented.

Is anyone else as baffled as I am by this attitude that if it was decided in a referendum you don't get to stand for what you believe in anymore? Where on earth did this perverse nonsense come from and how is it remotely democratic?

Never said that. You can believe in what you advocated for still. But thinking you can re-referendum something when barely any time hasn't passed isn't democratic in spirit. Good that you believe that there should not be another referendum on electoral reform.

The optimal democracy (in terms of being the most democratic, not in terms of actually being good in any way), in theory, has every disputable issue on continual vote all of the time, with people's votes changing at-will, and policy changing as per instant results. Obviously, that's utterly impractical, but nothing that moves closer to it can reasonably be considered "anti-democratic".

It does go both ways, which is precisely why what the campaigns say is ultimately irrelevant because all you're voting on is the question on the ballot paper. The only job of political campaigns is to sent you into that voting booth with preconceptions.

It's not the campaigns who implement the result of the vote, it's the government.

If that is the case then I should be advocating for us to stay in the Single Market. I'm not, because I know that isn't what the public voted for. There's more to what people voted for than 'just leave' - they voted for sovereignty and reduced immigration. Staying in the Single Market might enable us to meet the technicality, but not meet the reasoning.

Your sort of view is essentially technocratic lawyering - it is the view of nitpickers, relying on technicality, the stance of the electoral pharisee, to ignore what a vote actually said.

Three different campaigner's attempts to persuade me to vote leave were based around the claim that we would leave the EU but stay in the single market. What the vote says is what it fucking says on the ballot, not some random argument that was made by some subset of campaigners that clearly isn't all campaigners. In fact, the only people that I can remember telling me that we would leave the single market were remain campaigners, and their claims were dismissed as scaremongering by the leave campaigners.

Clearly we should only have elections every 25 years then.

Explain your reasoning.

Take your reasoning for referenda, replace the word "referendum" with "election" at every point that it appears.

Unless, of course, you've got some kind of coherent argument as to why referenda are fundamentally different from elections in this regard.

[Imperializt Russia]

-snip-

They aren't gerrymandered, that's why we have an independent boundary commission.

That seems to rule heavily in the favour of the Tories, in a manner that could well make Labour irrelevant in a few years.

If it's bad for democracy, why was electoral reform rejected in a referendum in 2011 where there were only two choices - Yes to electoral reform, No to electoral reform? FPTP is democratically supported by the British people.

On a 42% turnout following a scare campaign of "you're too stupid to understand this system that challenges the dominance of the two main parties, just vote against it, we only did it to stop them nagging us, do the right thing for BRITAIN"

I disagree that it was done in good faith.
I disagree further that it should have been put to referendum.

[Fartsniffage]

That's only guaranteed to succeed if you have no upper bound on the number of MPs, and it might not be even then, now I think about it.

Infinite MPs.

If we just make everyone an MP then we could all vote on everything.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Infinite MPs.

If we just make everyone an MP then we could all vote on everything.

But then we'd all have to be cunts.

[Fartsniffage]

If we just make everyone an MP then we could all vote on everything.

But then we'd all have to be cunts.

Hmmmm. I may be a little overqualified then.

[Frank Zipper]

If we just make everyone an MP then we could all vote on everything.

But then we'd all have to be cunts.

Just think of the expenses we could claim. Ornamental duck houses for everyone.