Rayvin

If it doesn't happen here, it's just not going to until the 2 years is up IMO. This is the most shambolic episode of government I've ever seen, there is no credible way the Tories can replace her but she absolutely needs to go. Horrifying stuff. Starmer making the right decision though here.

I never said it wasn't democratically executed. In fact I think in one of my earlier posts already acknowledged it was. You're continuing to respond to what you think I'm saying rather than what I'm saying. Everything else in there - I agree. None of that is news though, and you're basically saying they're voting on insecurity, anxiety, feelings and emotion. Which is also what I'm saying they're doing. So yes, agreed. But my lasting point on this is that this is not helpful in achieving productive outcomes for our society, i.e. those that make our lives better. Indeed, they make our lives worse, and in the case of Brexit, seems to be actively working against their own stated aims. Other than that though man, yeah, I know why this happened. I understand it. As I said earlier, I forgave the original decision because I understood it. What I can't accept is people denying reality and doubling down now that they can see it's all nonsense. That's my issue. The fact we're still here with these lunatics in power, is because of that denial of reality. I'm not forgiving it until the wrongdoing is acknowledged.

Who claimed that it was because they were stupid, exactly? I feel like you think that's what I'm saying but if so, you're not reading my posts properly. I also don't think I said they were lied to (they were). I said that their opinions being formed based on gut feel rather than informed evidence was a flawed structure that has no benefit within the democratic process. So if you prefer, the process by which people vote on gut feel instead of evidence and analysis, should be banned. Impractical, but then I was never really saying that there was any practical way of achieving this, I was just saying that it should be the case.

Just to make totally sure that we're clear on this, I'm not calling for anything to be called democracy. The democracy we are living is a failed system that has been abused and distorted beyond being remotely useful by years of Tory rule and perversion by corporate and dirty money. I don't care if we exit this period one day with or without democracy as it is currently defined. I just want a less devastating system of governance where smart and experienced people are able to make decisions that benefit society. I think that's something that democracy can be but in our case isn't. Maybe something approaching a technocracy, who knows. My contention though, isn't that I want democracy. I just don't want the hell our current system is inflicting on us. And to go back to my original point (waaaay back), I'm in no hurry to reconcile with people who are being weaponised within this system against their own interests due to their propensity to dismiss and reject informed opinion in place of their gut feeling on matters. I'm really ok with that position too - they have failed me, not the other way around. I'm not going cap in hand and asking them to fuck me all over again, I'm just going to stand to the side and criticise their decision making framework and harp on endlessly about the consequences of their choices. That may make them dig their heels in all the more but... if that's true, they really are overgrown toddlers.

This is also a good idea and last I checked would have us led by the Greens.

Not saying they shouldn't vote because they're stupid, I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote until they're informed and prepared to vote based on assessment of evidence. We are all capable of that, no one is too stupid to do so. Not all opinions are equal. Some are logically thought out and well evidenced, others are ignorant and baseless. I would like an identical version of democracy but one where politicians are shot (literally) for being found to lie, where the press are sued for misrepresentations of the truth, and where more effort is given to teaching people how their society works, how politics works, and what they're voting for.

I'm not necessarily advocating for democracy. I want something that will improve people's lives. Democracy in its current form is broken and prioritises pandering to idiocy ahead of practical, rational outcomes. And as the link I provided shows, I'm not the only one who thinks so. Voting on gut feel is not something I will ever respect in any sense.

Yeah the Tories really need to grow up here if this is the plan. You fucked up, you backed the wrong horse, fuck off and call a GE. There is no democratic process that can achieve what you want to achieve here. Fuck. Off.

That's fair enough actually, ok. Sorry

So I'm not totally sure which bits of this were aimed at me - clearly I've not said anything about the referendum not being democratic, or that it should have been ignored or overruled so I assume from what you've said that those were to address others. I'll just sit those bits out and tackle the above. You're saying it in response to my comment, that if people are not factually informed on what they're voting for, not educated as to the implications, and are basing their voting on a gut feel, that they should not be allowed to vote. I stand by that comment and disagree that it's of the same nature as people not being allowed to vote based on physical attributes or class. People voting based on make believe and 'gut feelings' while ignoring evidence and analysis are not engaging in any useful sense with democracy or indeed reality. They're engaging in narratives and lies that have been prepared for them by the elites who know how to weaponise their ignorance. I do not believe people voting based on this shoddy framework should be allowed to do so. If 52% of the country had voted for Brexit based on an evidence based position that I may have disagreed with but could at least logically comprehend in terms of what they wanted and how this action would deliver that, fair enough. What we got though, was people voting emotionally for some nebulous concept around sovereignty that has no tangible practical impact on their lives, all the while claiming that it wouldn't hurt us and that claims that it would were project fear. And to be really clear on that, I have gone as far as to say that I understand and forgive that initial decision, based on the bollocks they were served up and lacking the political awareness to parse it at the time. Once the pain arrived though, those people have then lacked the maturity to acknowledge this, and have instead doubled down - all the while claiming that their emotive and insecure opinions, devoid of analysis or evidence, are of equal validity to those of people (not me) who actually know what they're talking about after years of study and expertise in related fields. Experts, as it were. They are trashing our framework for reference by refusing to acknowledge that our society rightfully values educated and experienced voices and their opinions in policy making, choosing instead to simply listen to anyone who says what they want to hear. This makes them childlike in their judgement. And consequently, not fit for the serious civic duty and responsibility of voting. There is a reason support for democracy is falling amongst younger generations - it's not because they're being radicalised by China or authoritarianism, it's because the whole process is a complete joke that prioritises emotive nonsense (used to provide cover to corporate/Russian interests) over practical, rational outcomes that could make people's lives better. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/10/young-adults-loss-of-faith-in-uk-democracy-survey So again, I stand by what I said.

They wouldn't win a GE though so I don't see how they can try for that with any expectation of holding power.

Yep - I'll listen to well reasoned arguments for anything, even Brexit, with an open mind as long as its tied to clear and accurate factual information with a logical framework. This has never been presented by anyone though. Not saying I have the monopoly on "correct opinion" but I am saying that the other side aren't putting forward opinions on equal factual footing.

Those people should not be allowed to vote, frankly. They're voting based on nothing. This isn't a game, we have a duty to educate and inform ourselves before we undertake decisions that commit the country to years of a particular outcome - a responsibility that many don't take seriously. We all have access to the same information. There are not multiple truths, just a single truth. Brexit will and is making us poorer. I don't blame people for voting for it so much as I blame them for refusing to see reality now. We are pandering to their reality instead of acknowledging truth. And as I said, that's where the division comes from - it's not on us to fix that, it's on them.

I sympathise with the thrust of this because it matches my thinking on other issues but for Brexit I can't make it fly. We did know Cameron would bail and run if he lost, it was a matter if some debate prior to the event and there was no way he would want to preside over the greatest calamity and omnishables of recent British history. As Renton said, there were no good Brexits. There was one that was Brexit in name only, which would have been more or less the same other than being humiliating and removing us from all decision making within the EU. It would have been strategically pointless but less damaging. People got the only Brexit that really made any sense from the perspective of the vote, but one they hadn't been honestly told about the damage of. As for the division - maybe you're right from a pragmatic standpoint - Starmer certainly seems to think so. But by the same token as you lamented the fact that the truth is not told in politics, I lament that truth cannot be accepted by the emotionally fragile. I don't see why I should bend for the egos of those who are demonstrably wrong about the virtues of this calamity, but who refuse to see this due to their own insecurity. If that causes division, I would contend that division comes from their denial of the truth, not my refusal to indulge them. Pet peeve, sorry.

If he's got me mixed up with CT that's frankly unforgivable.

Don't think I've been a downer on the team particularly? Tend to make the odd drunken postgame comment here and there about how we'll crush everyone too tbh I am absolutely thrilled with the team and the project and have no criticisms with any of it really

I reckon we can take this. 2-0, 2-1 but we can win. Its at OT so they -have- to attack us, and that will leave them vulnerable to our intensity and press. Our issues are with breaking down teams that expect to lose, not teams that have to go at us. We can do this.

I mentioned it only because we have previously been in argument with each other on several occasions Let's be fair though, this whole place is a huge echo chamber of agreement for the most part. It has to get quite specific for anyone to disagree. We are all:

I just keep finding more and more that I agree with you on.

He's an absolute lunatic. I know that word gets thrown around a lot when talking about the Tories, but he really is one.

Labour did that last time (gain centreground and stick) and still fell away from power in the end. They need to do everything you've outlined here plus PR. I know you're already on board with that but I keep coming back to how important that is to make sure this never happens again. The Tories can never be allowed unchecked power again.

Absolute insanity. And she backed that welfare bill that ultimately caused so much outrage within Labour and (in my case and doubtless many others) pushed us into the arms of Corbyn.

Wait, Miliband or Corbyn? I assume the vote in Parliament was the latter but was the commitment Miliband?? What on earth Labour were doing for the Cameron years in general, I'll never understand.

It would have been far more democratic than most of the nonsense we have had since. And he could have walked away and let Cameron try to get by with a minority government - would have been utterly useless but then.. less damaging. He enabled the worst legitimate Prime Minister in living memory, whose legacy has been one of total chaos. I say legitimate because the Brexit shower who followed him were not, to my mind, legitimate - they were a coup d'etat.

Clegg turned down coalition with Brown, not Miliband, as I recall it.