General Election

According to today's news, Lib Dems and SNP want one for different reasons - Lib Dems to grab more seats which they would and SNP to support their agenda for leaving the UK. Obviously Labour don't want one now whilst the unelectable Corbyn is at the helm - something that won't change until Sir Keir is the leader - but it seems that the LDs and SNP are playing the same silly game of party politics that the Tories are - and that's a disaster for the Remain movement.
Obviously the Tories would fight the campaign on railroading through Brexit but with all the evidence now pointing to the majority of Brits who can vote wanting to Remain after the deaths of so many geriatric Leave voters, the silent Remainers at the referendum and the million or so youngsters who have become eligible to vote over the last three years being 3 to 1 in favour of remaining in the EU, surely the most sensible option would be a Remain alliance with the multiple pro-Remain parties not putting up a candidate in areas where they can't win in order to avoid splitting the vote?

But no. Party politics is likely to win out and the Remain vote will be split. Effing politicians talk about "national interest" but the reality is they are looking after number one. And it's a big steaming, smelly number one.

wanderlust wrote:According to today's news, Lib Dems and SNP want one for different reasons - Lib Dems to grab more seats which they would and SNP to support their agenda for leaving the UK. Obviously Labour don't want one now whilst the unelectable Corbyn is at the helm - something that won't change until Sir Keir is the leader - but it seems that the LDs and SNP are playing the same silly game of party politics that the Tories are - and that's a disaster for the Remain movement.
Obviously the Tories would fight the campaign on railroading through Brexit but with all the evidence now pointing to the majority of Brits who can vote wanting to Remain after the deaths of so many geriatric Leave voters, the silent Remainers at the referendum and the million or so youngsters who have become eligible to vote over the last three years being 3 to 1 in favour of remaining in the EU, surely the most sensible option would be a Remain alliance with the multiple pro-Remain parties not putting up a candidate in areas where they can't win in order to avoid splitting the vote?

But no. Party politics is likely to win out and the Remain vote will be split. Effing politicians talk about "national interest" but the reality is they are looking after number one. And it's a big steaming, smelly number one.

Surely it's a number two!!!

No mention there of democracy, or the 17.4 million leavers, even though, according to your distasteful comment, that so many have died. Its not only the old that die, so maybe you can find out the figures , and prove to us all the wisdom of your remarks?
You also seem to forget to include all those people, Remainers included, who are so tired with the politicians that they want it all to be over, surely that aspect should be included in your summary?

gloswhite wrote:No mention there of democracy, or the 17.4 million leavers, even though, according to your distasteful comment, that so many have died. Its not only the old that die, so maybe you can find out the figures , and prove to us all the wisdom of your remarks?
You also seem to forget to include all those people, Remainers included, who are so tired with the politicians that they want it all to be over, surely that aspect should be included in your summary?

I'm sorry if you find it distasteful Glos but I'm only reporting a study published by YouGov reported here in the Independent.
This information is also supported by the huge study undertaken by the professor at Strathclyde (can't remember his name but he's on the TV and radio a lot) who concluded that 90% of those who voted in the referendum would vote the same way again, but the demographics have changed re who is eligible to vote now - hence my comments.
What either study didn't consider was those who didn't vote first time around.
As for those who "just want it to be over" - that strapline/mantra has been exposed as a Dominic Cummings tactic to try and railroad through a deal at any cost and less and less people are buying it.

Just realised this should be on Wandering Minds.

wanderlust wrote:Just realised this should be on Wandering Minds.

Putting the drink down might help!

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:No mention there of democracy, or the 17.4 million leavers, even though, according to your distasteful comment, that so many have died. Its not only the old that die, so maybe you can find out the figures , and prove to us all the wisdom of your remarks?
You also seem to forget to include all those people, Remainers included, who are so tired with the politicians that they want it all to be over, surely that aspect should be included in your summary?

I'm sorry if you find it distasteful Glos but I'm only reporting a study published by YouGov reported here in the Independent.
This information is also supported by the huge study undertaken by the professor at Strathclyde (can't remember his name but he's on the TV and radio a lot) who concluded that 90% of those who voted in the referendum would vote the same way again, but the demographics have changed re who is eligible to vote now - hence my comments.
What either study didn't consider was those who didn't vote first time around.
As for those who "just want it to be over" - that strapline/mantra has been exposed as a Dominic Cummings tactic to try and railroad through a deal at any cost and less and less people are buying it.

Fair enough. You are referring to Dr John Curtice, who I find is really good, and usually spot on. I have also heard these comments, but even he says that everything is in the air at the moment Nothing unusual for Brexit.
Re getting younger voters in, there is no time to get a law through before Brexit is resolved, and it does of course have many other connotations with it. Such as, do these same young people need to assume all the responsibilities of adults regards the law, taxes, etc, or is it just a gambit by desperate politicians to use the young for what will be a passing phase?
How was the 'Just want it to be over' proven to be a Dominic Cummings tactic ? It appears to be a statement of fact, just look at how many have said on TV that this is what they want, even quite a few Remainers. Its a fact that cannot be ignored.

Not sure if we're talking at cross-purposes here Glos but just in case....I wasn't talking about "getting younger voters in" in the sense of 16 year olds being allowed to vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum for example, but rather than in the 3 years that have passed since the EU referendum, over a million young people have reached the age of 18 and would therefore be entitled to vote in a General Election for the first time.
And the point I was originally making was that if Boris were to get a general election, the likelihood is that he would fight it on the platform of Brexit - and still trying to claim it's the "will of the people" even though the evidence suggests it is no longer the will of the people.

Trouble being with that idea, Wanders, is that after any vote there will be hundreds of youngsters under 18 becoming 18 the week after and thus would have been denied an opportunity to vote at the time.
 It really is Hobson's Choice. If there was a renewed vote for 'Remaining' then the identical problem would raise it's head. Just the other side of the argument being ignored by a government not really interested in what the majority of the population think.

Bollotom2014 wrote:Trouble being with that idea, Wanders, is that after any vote there will be hundreds of youngsters under 18 becoming 18 the week after and thus would have been denied an opportunity to vote at the time.
 It really is Hobson's Choice. If there was a renewed vote for 'Remaining' then the identical problem would raise it's head. Just the other side of the argument being ignored by a government not really interested in what the majority of the population think.

It's all relative. There will always be hundreds of folk reaching the age shortly after a given date - I had to wait an extra year for my state pension because my birthday fell a month before an arbitrary deadline. However there are almost 400k kids (not just hundreds) who reach voting age per annum and there have been 3 years since the EU fiasco.
As for a second referendum, if it were to go in favour of remain as expected, it would be a case of "Brexit's what x million wanted then, but this is what y million want now" so let's not waste any more time and money on it - but then people would be wanting a referendum every 3 years - an idea that I don't find problematic if  it was organised properly i.e. every 3 years we have a YouGov poll (which costs nothing and is easier to do) and IF there's evidence of a significant shift in opinion, THEN have a full blown referendum.

wanderlust wrote:Not sure if we're talking at cross-purposes here Glos but just in case....I wasn't talking about "getting younger voters in" in the sense of 16 year olds being allowed to vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum for example, but rather than in the 3 years that have passed since the EU referendum, over a million young people have reached the age of 18 and would therefore be entitled to vote in a General Election for the first time.
And the point I was originally making was that if Boris were to get a general election, the likelihood is that he would fight it on the platform of Brexit - and still trying to claim it's the "will of the people" even though the evidence suggests it is no longer the will of the people.

Unreal what a load of bollox FFS give it a rest labour and lib dems will get destroyed at the GE.

On a lighter note that Jo Swinson gives me a boner every time she comes on telly what a cracking pair.

I've always felt Brexit would be a disaster that the next generation (and possibly the one after) would wind up paying for while those who voted for it would be gone (it's not an attempt to be distasteful, only an acknowledgement that the largest 'Leave' demographic was among the over 65's).

I felt at the time and still do that since this IS an issue that will have such a long term effect on the UK that perhaps it would be wise to actually restrict the eligibilty to vote on it to those under 50. They after all are the ones who will have to live with the real world consequences of this far reaching decision. If there should be a second referendum I believe that's something the Government of the day whomever's it is should seriously consider. And just so you know under this criteria I wouldn't be able to vote either.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I've always felt Brexit would be a disaster that the next generation (and possibly the one after) would wind up paying for while those who voted for it would be gone (it's not an attempt to be distasteful, only an acknowledgement that the largest 'Leave' demographic was among the over 65's).

I felt at the time and still do that since this IS an issue that will have such a long term effect on the UK that perhaps it would be wise to actually restrict the eligibilty to vote on it to those under 50. They after all are the ones who will have to live with the real world consequences of this far reaching decision. If there should be a second referendum I believe that's something the Government of the day whomever's it is should seriously consider. And just so you know under this criteria I wouldn't be able to vote either.

No disrespect Peter, but this is absolute bollocks. The idea of a vote, any vote, is to see what people, across the whole spectrum wishes. Going down the road you suggest is plain stupid. You are vetting your audience before you ask. How can you get a balanced view by limiting who you ask? It is for this very reason that polls are so unreliable. To take a legal right away from someone, who has paid their dues all their life is most definitely the wrong thing to do. Why don't we limit voting to 30 so that everyone who takes drugs can change the laws so that they dont get charged with an offence. Oh, and in doing so, everyone over the age of 30 carries on paying tax for them to do so.

The older you get the wiser you get.

gloswhite wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I've always felt Brexit would be a disaster that the next generation (and possibly the one after) would wind up paying for while those who voted for it would be gone (it's not an attempt to be distasteful, only an acknowledgement that the largest 'Leave' demographic was among the over 65's).

I felt at the time and still do that since this IS an issue that will have such a long term effect on the UK that perhaps it would be wise to actually restrict the eligibilty to vote on it to those under 50. They after all are the ones who will have to live with the real world consequences of this far reaching decision. If there should be a second referendum I believe that's something the Government of the day whomever's it is should seriously consider. And just so you know under this criteria I wouldn't be able to vote either.

No disrespect Peter, but this is absolute bollocks. The idea of a vote, any vote, is to see what people, across the whole spectrum wishes. Going down the road you suggest is plain stupid. You are vetting your audience before you ask. How can you get a balanced view by limiting who you ask? It is for this very reason that polls are so unreliable. To take a legal right away from someone, who has paid their dues all their life is most definitely the wrong thing to do. Why don't we limit voting to 30 so that everyone who takes drugs can change the laws so that they dont get charged with an offence. Oh, and in doing so, everyone over the age of 30 carries on paying tax for them to do so.

On reflection it has to be said this wasn't one of my brighter ideas.

But I do feel that a second referendum would be justified if the Conservatives lose the General Election since it's very likely Brexit will be THE number one issue in the campaign. Perhaps we older folks should take a moment to reflect on the fact our decision is going to have a long term effect, one we may well not be around to deal with.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I've always felt Brexit would be a disaster that the next generation (and possibly the one after) would wind up paying for while those who voted for it would be gone (it's not an attempt to be distasteful, only an acknowledgement that the largest 'Leave' demographic was among the over 65's).

I felt at the time and still do that since this IS an issue that will have such a long term effect on the UK that perhaps it would be wise to actually restrict the eligibilty to vote on it to those under 50. They after all are the ones who will have to live with the real world consequences of this far reaching decision. If there should be a second referendum I believe that's something the Government of the day whomever's it is should seriously consider. And just so you know under this criteria I wouldn't be able to vote either.

No disrespect Peter, but this is absolute bollocks. The idea of a vote, any vote, is to see what people, across the whole spectrum wishes. Going down the road you suggest is plain stupid. You are vetting your audience before you ask. How can you get a balanced view by limiting who you ask? It is for this very reason that polls are so unreliable. To take a legal right away from someone, who has paid their dues all their life is most definitely the wrong thing to do. Why don't we limit voting to 30 so that everyone who takes drugs can change the laws so that they dont get charged with an offence. Oh, and in doing so, everyone over the age of 30 carries on paying tax for them to do so.

On reflection it has to be said this wasn't one of my brighter ideas.

But I do feel that a second referendum would be justified if the Conservatives lose the General Election since it's very likely Brexit will be THE number one issue in the campaign. Perhaps we older folks should take a moment to reflect on the fact our decision is going to have a long term effect, one we may well not be around to deal with.

Have to admit Peter, I burst out laughing when I read your first line.
I don't agree with a second referendum as the first one has not been honored yet. 
I made the decision to leave, not for myself, but for future generations. I believe that we will fare better as our own masters rather than as a minor cog in a big machine, where individuality, in whatever sphere will be phased out.

Touching on the age thing. I was at work the other day, (my part-time job), and this chap was spouting on about old people being in the way when he and his wife has to do the shopping at weekends. He seems to think we have all week to do that and should be more considerate. I pointed out that its probably the old uns that keep the shops economy going during the week, and that a little consideration should be shown. He said he didn't mind me doing it as I was still working.   I also mentioned that a lot of the elderly go out during the weekends to be amongst people, as they could well be living on their own and needed to see others. Needless to say, he hadn't thought of that.

He must have been a remainer.

Angry Dad wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Not sure if we're talking at cross-purposes here Glos but just in case....I wasn't talking about "getting younger voters in" in the sense of 16 year olds being allowed to vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum for example, but rather than in the 3 years that have passed since the EU referendum, over a million young people have reached the age of 18 and would therefore be entitled to vote in a General Election for the first time.
And the point I was originally making was that if Boris were to get a general election, the likelihood is that he would fight it on the platform of Brexit - and still trying to claim it's the "will of the people" even though the evidence suggests it is no longer the will of the people.

Unreal what a load of bollox FFS give it a rest labour and lib dems will get destroyed at the GE.

So you reckon that there will actually be a GE? And if so that Boris won't try to make it all about his own political future aka railroading through Breaksit before Murdoch and Mercer etc have him replaced? And that a Lib Dem/Labour/SNP/Plaid Cymru/Green coalition won't happen as a result?

TBH the last one is unlikely since that knob Corbyn is more concerned about his political future rather than the good of the country or even his own party.