BeermatTrue, but then again the vote would be on the whole package, it would be for each individual to decide the relative importance of the positives and negatives to them and decide whether the whole thing is worth doing or not. As all the factors will be known this balanced judgement will be possible in a way it wasn’t before or at the time of the last referendum. I am not suggesting people needed ‘educating’, that’s a vile conceit. What I mean is people didn’t know what real life Brexit IS, because it hadn’t been shaped by negotiation, and let’s face it some of us were under all kinds of illusions about it – me included. A second referendum would be appropriate – and not a second vote on the same thing, a first vote on a different thing – a solid proposition, not a sampling of public feeling blown on the winds of all kinds of misinformation from both sides.
BeermatNo, John, you misunderstand, perhaps deliberately. You are determined to see a left-wing plot in everything, aren’t you?
It’s not about getting the ‘right’ result, you are setting this up as confrontational when it’s not meant to be. This would be about getting an INDISPUTABLE result, as no one – not either side – could argue that people didn’t understand what they were voting for.
The last vote was on ‘do we want to leave the European Union’ and the whole ‘Go for it Theresa, now get us a nice deal that’ll stuff it to those foreigners’ school of Brexit suggests that many – including a lot of people who should know better – didn’t actually understand the consequences of what they were voting for.
It’s not May’s fault (ok, the pre-election plastic-Thatcher posturing was) – ‘Brexit means Brexit’ is not just an empty phrase – she was pointing out that it’s already all or nothing, we have announced we are leaving the tennis club and all she is really discussing is how we disengage in all areas (whether we get to keep the rackets), not how much or in what areas (what club courts we can still play on).
It’s just that her more stupid cheerleeders aren’t getting the message. What she can achieve in terms of cherry-picking the best bits to keep is a fat zero. Did you not follow the chap – I’m guessing you didn’t sit through it all, understandable if you haven’t had the practice in receiving an hour’s lecture that higher education gives you.
The point is when we see what we are voting on we can have a vote on it. My understanding of democracy is that this is a preferable way of doing things. What is wrong with one vote to trigger the negotiations and then another on the negotiated deal? It’s just a two-stage approval process, not a hunt for a particular result.
I honestly don’t know which way that second vote would go.
Your disapproval suggests you would rather the result of a less well informed vote stood without the more informed (ie ‘deal on the table’) second stage.
BeermatI was convinced of three things by that lecture:
a) The main point that there is little to negotiate, it has to be a hard Brexit because we have nothing to bargain with. His tennis club analogy is perfect – we announce we are leaving the tennis club because we don’t like the fees or the rules, then on our way to the door try to negotiate being let back on to the courts to carry on playing tennis. It just doesn’t work.
b) Negotiations therefore don’t need to take very long – we are only supposed to be discussing the mechanisms for exit anyway, not the terms.
c) Once we have done that the totality of Brexit – everything that it actually will mean in concrete terms because that is the agreement – is put in front of the British people and a second referendum – this time with honest terms of reference – is held. After that, with the mechanism already agreed and nothing else to argue about, it then happens quickly and cleanly, or it doesn’t.
We went about this in completely the wrong order, but only because no-one who called the vote expected the result. If May were to put that simple plan in front of the nation she would do wonders for her position.
BeermatThe concept of ‘greater good’ is as archaic to most main-party politicians as that of a flat earth. ‘Greater vote’ is the only guiding principle, so its up to us to vote for what we percieve as the greater good if that is what we wish. This often means placing our X next to those we are told by the ‘mainstream’ are unelectable – whether that was Farage if your peception of the ‘greater good’ is John’s, or Corbyn if it’s that of many others. One thing it will never be is a modern Conservative. It is philosophically anathemic to ‘New Tory” to pay attention to what might be the ‘Greater good’.
Beermat” interesting views from you both and good sense in both of what you say”
Well, it’s a notch above spotting creases in a chap’s shirt (at Glastonbury!) as political discourse.
I also have to make use of our motorway network on a frequent basis and it’s shaming. God knows what a visitor from overseas makes of it. Everything looks shabby and frankly a little bit third world – certainly well below the standard of any other European nation and in places – especially in terms of the miles of coned-off sections with no work going on – very similar to how I remember the more remote highways of Colombia and Ecuador. I wonder sometimes whether one of the reasons we wish to shy away from Europe is to prevent further comparison of such things – this, the railways, water and utilities, social housing, the list goes on.
Sadly, John, letters of complaint won’t get read. The only thing that would work would be a Government who gave a toss in the first place.
BeermatPeople said that about Labour and Corbyn, though. I agree Cable will have a tougher job – it’s taken this long to explain to a de-politicised generation what Labour stand for – with centuries of ideological and socio-economic thought behind it. The Liberals will have a yet steeper hill to climb.
I don’t think we will see a new centre party. I do think Corbyn will retire in two years, and a young left-leaning leader with no historical associations (either to 70’s radicalism or 90’s fake-labour) will stand effectively against the Conservatives. This will have been made possible by the ‘normalisation’ of a left-thinking opposition, something the public haven’t really had for a long time, that is happening right now.
BeermatYes, he might have got a bit carried away by the adulation. I liked the rock star “Thank you Glastonbury” bit at the end of his set (there was clearly a part of him that had always wanted to do that). He doesn’t have any more mandate than May, though he would probably poll more votes right now. We will never know, of course.
But he didn’t say that about Trident, it was made up. The actual non-story was, and I quote the Telegraph: “Somerset Live reported that Mr Eavis said Mr Corbyn predicted..” etc.
The Telegraph were using all the tricks to perpetuate the story though. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/25/jeremy-corbyn-forced-deny-told-glastonbury-organiser-will-scrap/
‘…forced to deny he said…’ is practically Fleet Street code for ‘we have run something largely fabricated and we know it’. Still, quote a Tory MP saying ‘This man is dangerous and cannot be trusted’ and you can still make your readers nod their heads knowingly and move on to the sport..
BeermatAnd it looks like someone’s found the Magic Money Tree. Turns out it was guarded by leprechauns.
BeermatWish McDonnell hadn’t used the word ‘murder’ though. Silly.
BeermatOh, and I am also braced for the ‘dreamland’ bit as well. I don’t subscribe to any idealist vision, so knock away at those who do if it makes you feel better.
BeermatTabloid heading spotted today ‘Corbyn insults our brave boys’. Oh, thinks I, that’s bad, what has he done? Turns out that he went to Glastonbury to speak about decency and equality (or ‘rant’, as the Sun hears this kind of thing) and yesterday was armed forces day. That making this out to be a slur on our armed forces is all they have left is a sign of desperation.
The real story is that a 100,000 cross-section of our youth (plus a scattering of older musos and hippies) all cheered a leader of the opposition. Chants of ‘Oh, Jeremy Corbyn’ to the tune of ‘Seven Nation Army’ went around the campsites all Friday and Saturday night. He drew a bigger crowd than Radiohead.
Whether you agree with any of his policies or not this is a news story – or at least a story with more substance than his being there to address many thousands of people was somehow insulting to anyone. Offensive to tories, yes, but one day it will dawn that this isn’t an insult to the people.
Bring it on, feckless people with long hair, of course they’ll support him, etc etc. Except that this lazy explanation belongs to those who think this is 1970. Coughjohncough. If one looks at who actually can spare the hundreds it costs to go, maybe look at the people more carefully under the plastic flower headbands, you can see why the tory organs are trying everything to spin this shift towards popular politics as if it were a morally offensive minority.
BeermatI am surprised at the amount of bile out there against me for being made redundant. Where did that come from about low paid menial jobs? I got another job. In the meantime I was hoping to keep a roof over my kids heads while I got that job. Fortunately it didn’t matter as my redundancy package covered me for it, I was just enquiring as to my options should it all go wrong – or rather, options for those I support. As you would.
Snailer, who are you? You just appear on here to get nasty at someone for being laid off?
You make a hell of a lot of assumptions.
1) Feckless. How on earth am I feckless?
2) I think menial jobs are beneath me? Since getting my degree a very long time ago I have worked in pubs, as a postie, a teaching assistant, a builders labourer, a landscape gardener, on a counter at Boots and as a door-to-door doll salesman on Liverpool trading estates. Not that these were all menial, though the last one was. For the past 17 years I have been in a career, the last 10 of it fairly well re-numerated. My only spell of unemployment was the one I mentioned, and as I pointed out I didn’t take any of your money for that either.
3) I think menial jobs are only for immigrants? Where on earth do you get that from?
4) Receiving benefits equals unemployed. Not true any more – in fact it never was, but especially now. For example I expect you will find a lot of ‘menial’ – as you put it – employment among those former residents of Grenfell tower who may be in receipt of support.
I don’t know you and you don’t know me. Don’t make silly assumptions about me and I won’t assume you are another foolish internet troll with nothing better to do at 12.01 on a Friday night.. I’d like to meet you, we can compare fecks.
Taxpayers include me, one pays National Insurance to Insure oneself against temporary redundancy, and I have. And a lot of Tax.
I was not railing at the ‘unfairness’ of it or making out I was particularly deserving, just illustrating a quirk in the system that means cash gifts intended to help people in difficulty might end up subsidising the taxpayer not the intended recipient. How does me being a ‘socialist’ (which I don’t believe I am) or a ‘militant’ (which I most definitely am not) have anything to do with this?
On a point of order, it’s not rent on ‘my’ house. It’s rent on somebody else’s house. I don’t begrudge it, just highlighting where the money – be it someones hard-earned or from the ‘state’ – actually goes.
Biters get bit, John? What on earth does that mean? I haven’t laid anyone off in my life – but I don’t imagine that’s what you meant. What did you mean?
BeermatIf only it were so, Tony. I was between jobs for three months last year, and despite my savings being below the threshold I could not receive JSA or Housing to cover my rent because of money from an estranged family member held in trust for a specific family purpose.
When I said to the chap at the council ‘what if I spent it on something or gave it to another family member to look after’ he said it wouldn’t work, as they have access to all your bank accounts and if the money was passed out of an account after the current circumstances began to prevail not only did it still count as your asset you might be guilty of fraud in pursuing the claim while hiding an asset.
Power to the People
Or, if Comrades Ryan and Green are on board with the Popular Front- Power to the people as long as they are above a certain income level and white.
BeermatInterestingly you have hit on the reason why there are no charities to help the destitute in the UK, keeping the fact of destitution under the radar. Its because any cash gift would be subtracted from all benefits, including housing benefit. They look at your bank account these days. The only way to help is gifts in kind – food banks. That’s why they exist.
But largely I unsurprisingly agree with Bruce. Yes the council may have to invest in more housing stock to maintain whatever status quo existed – but that’s their look-out in letting the existing stock burn down, not the fault of the survivors whatever colour they are
BeermatIndeed.
Sign In
