Anarchy in the UK? When politicians ignore the electorate.

"The facts show that the latter method has a higher tax return" Referring to keeping tax rates low. Going back to your point POGS, I agree it's counter productive, when Seven Jobs George was Chancellor he thought it would be a good idea to raise Stamp Duty which has resulted in far less receipts for that particular tax and surely one of the factors of the stagnation in the housing market. In the meantime, as we all know, the really big tax evaders pay bugger all in relation to their turnover.

pogs in answering my question “ what do leave voters want MPs to do. ? ” i.e which version of Brexit should they be supporting- you merely answer with another question about remain MPs. Answering a question with a different question is not answering the question. So what do Brexit supporters want MPs to do? Support Brexit is not the answer- what version of Brexit?
lemon if the only civil unrest is going to be from remainers there is little to worry about. However if all factions are disgruntled then that is more worrying.

crystal tips

" Answering a question with a different question is not answering the question. ".

True but what is the point of asking what Brexit or Remain MP's should do when we all surely to goodness by now realise there is no consensus from either side in Parliament from the 2 main parties..

You asked about Leave MP's only so to balance out your post I asked about Remain MP's and to be honest I did so because asking a question that has no affirmative answer is ruddy useless to be honest!
-----

' So what do Brexit supporters want MPs to do? Support Brexit is not the answer- what version of Brexit?'

I repeat there is. no consensus from Brexit or Leave supporters some will simply say Leave some will simply say Remain. Some will want a 2nd referendum whether you voted Remain or Leave, bla, bla, bla.

This is why this is such a mess , no consensus nor pragmatism everybody tells the other side to drop their ' Red Lines ' whilst holding to their ' Red Lines'.

pogs I didn’t ask about leave MPs - I asked what leave supporters such as the OP actually wanted them to do. From the OP Our politicians, not all of them, but many of them, are attempting to thwart democracy in stopping Brexit or finding ways to tie us to Brussels indefinitely so what do you actually want MPs to do? What version of Brexit should they be supporting according to leave supporters? You acknowledge that there is no agreement, so this idea they are trying to “thwart democracy” is flawed, since we don’t know what version of Brexit the majority would support. We are only a few weeks away from B day and we still don’t know whether we are sleepwalking into a crisis or should be stockpiling food and medicines, or everything will be hunky dory. It sounds like a certain section would be happy for martial law to be declared, and others just want to get on with their lives and all this sh*tshow to go away.

the really big tax evaders pay bugger all
And now we hear that Phillip Hammond can't follow through with his August budget promise to tax online sales because it's against eu rules on fair competition.
In the Retail Gazette. Riveting read
I think it's more a case of Jean Claude Juncker getting a call from his friends in Luxembourg telling him to get this stopped. Job done

But more than half who voted would be cheering in the streets if No Deal was the outcome of over two years of talks. Civil unrest would come from Remainers then, who wanted a second referendum in order to change the original result?

Given Leavers have been vilified as thick, ignorant, stupid, etc, at every turn, surely the (ahem) educated middle class elite Remainers would not start rooting in the streets but accept the result with dignity and...

Oh, wait a minute....

“More than half who voted “ how do you know that? We were promised a great deal by the leave campaign . As stated, not all leave voters had the same reasons for voting. So those leave voters who wanted more money for public services will be disappointed, not cheering in the streets. No deal may mean unrest when the £ collapses, people loose their jobs, austerity shows no sign of ending, food and medicine are in short supply and prices rise. A good number of these voters are no longer with us. 1500 Brexit hate crimes have been reported since 2015, that’s just the reported ones. A good excuse for more Tommy Robinson , now of UKIP, supporters type thuggery. Don’t pretend such folk do not exist. Plenty of those up for a bit of civil disobedience we’ve already seen it. “if we don’t get what we want there’ll be trouble”. Trouble is, what they were promised is not going to be delivered especially by a no deal Brexit. It will mean fewer Eastern European builders and care workers and the like, and that’s what it’s really been all about about, despite leavers’ denials.

I'm afraid that if those who voted Leave would be cheering in the streets at a No Deal conclusion they would thoroughly deserve to be called 'thick, ignorant, stupid, etc'.

Some of us, for many years, have been and still are are out physically demonstrating our oppostition or support, doing practical things that endorse our political values, writing letters to influencers, being politically active in a host of ways.
We have several Brexit threads on the go already..nothing new to say.
Join an action group for something that is important to you. Do something!

One thing has become very clear to both the leave and remain sides in this debate I feel, that being our parliamentary and political system is completely unfit for purpose in a modern and very changed world. Above all else, that needs desperately fixing whatever the outcome of Brexit.

As for social disorder, then if shortages should develop especially in food and medical supplies, then all sides of society may well become involved, no matter if they were leave or remain voters in the referendum.

I agree Grandad1943. Time to redesign the political system. Proportional representation perhaps?

I am so sick of the two Party System, which is tribalistic and divisive. I just hate how the Upper Classes (followed by the aping M.C's) want to rule all the time and also by those at the other extreme. We need PR and many Parties like our Continental neighbours.

or something like this?? www.progressivealliance.org.uk/

Thank you PECS. I will join and donate.

Glad to be able to spead the info!

I agree Mamie & David Macron is trying to bring about much needed changes but most people seem to want the status quo to remain. It really can't if France wants to grow and prosper.

The bitterness of the referendum spills over in these pages mainl because of closed minds. We have the same in the cabinet and in Parliament. I cannot claim to know what the electorate desires unlike many. Which is why I am prepared to accept the decision of the whole electorate based on a Governments detailed proposal or remain.

Proportional Representation leads to the continued ''possibility' of Coalitions/Confidence and Supply governments. When the Tories and Lib Dems went into Coalition and the Tories had a Confidence and Supply agreement with the DUP there is/was an outcry of foul play, often by those commentators who advocate Proportional Representation.

If the next General Election provides no overall majority and Labour and SNP formed a Coalition Government or forged a Confidence and Supply Agreement would that be OK ?

Is it the principal or whether individuals ' like' who the parties are that we base our views on Coalition Governments/ Confidence and Supply Agreements. If it is the case of acceptance because an individual favours the politics of the parties involved then that is hypocrisy if they dislike it when the parties do not suit their politics.

Proportional Representation could easily put political parties unknown to us at present to win seats and again if you hold fast to the 'principal ' of Proportional Representation you might just have to accept political parties that you dislike even more than you do at present.

There was a significant difference between the Tory/LibDem coalition and the present arrangement the Tories have with the DUP. That government did represent a majority of the voters in the 2010 GE. So it had some democratic legitimacy.

No money was involved as a bribe and, more importantly, we can all now surely see that the coalition govt, for all its faults, was nowhere near as bad as the subsequent Tory majority govt, let alone the present arrangement of pandering to extremists who do not even represent most folk in NI.

The LibDems in govt were able to block some bad Tory policies and enact some good LibDem policies, some of which, like the pupil premium, the Tories now claim credit for.

Varian

I repeat it is either the ' principal' or hypocritical backing only those political parties we as individuals like when it comes to liking or disliking Coalition Governments/ Confidence and Supply Agreements.

Just to remind posters who may have forgot.

In the 2010 General Election Labour under Gordon Brown tried to get the DUP to back them by committing to ' Ring Fence' the Northern Ireland budget from spending cuts. Some viewed that as a form of bribary.

Another case of Labour and the DUP in 2008

www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/dec/31/42-days

"Gordon Brown's government did reward the Democratic Unionists for backing the 42-day detention of terror suspects, Northern Ireland's first minister claimed today .

In his new year message, DUP leader Peter Robinson said his party's decision to support the 42-days bill helped deliver major economic investment for the province "
---

It is clear to me some do not hold the ' principal ' behind the usual./customary use of Coalition Governments/ Confidence and Supply but hypocritical happy with the arrangements as long is it between political parties that chime with them.

It is either acceptable for ALL/ANY political parties to go into Coalition/Confidence and Supply Agreements or not at all.!!!

Proportional Representation will bring forth probably more Coalition / Confidence and Supply Governments and it is no point thinking otherwise and certainly voters will have to get used to having Coalitions they absolutely would not want.

If we had PR then you would be right POGS - coalition governments would be much more likely. Parties would have to work together to find common ground and they would be able to govern in the name of the majority of the electorate. The UK has been very badly served by FPTP which so often results of a dictarship by a minority.

As First Past The Post has landed up with the dreadful mess we are now in, with half of the electorate who voted being completely marginalised and ignored, I think I'm perfectly happy to take my chances with a more consensual form of government.

We may end up with some parties we don't much like but at least their more despicable or lunatic policies are likely to be modified by having to reach agreement with other parties in government.

It might also encourage voters to put some thought into their choices instead of blindly voting for the same old, same old. And, they could feel that their 'voice' has more of a chance to be heard.

The trouble is that those of us in "safe seats" have very little chance of being heard. This putrid FPTP voting system leaves most folk represented by a party they voted against.

Varian Maizie d

Your posts are confusing.

That is what is happening now and could well happen at subsequent General Elections but you have made it perfectly clear over various threads you think Coalition Government / Confidence and Supply, ( parties working together ) , when the political parties are not of your liking you don't like it.

It is either a ' principal ' that applies whether it be for example Tories/DUP or Labour / DUP or any other combination . We could get a shock in the future what new political parties are formed, who knows?

It appears to me some only accept the ' principal ' as long as it chimes with their political view.

Still prepared to take a chance, POGS. I don't think that £10 billion bribes are a usual feature of a coalition agreement.

One of the most consistent analyses/theories of the exceptional turnout for the 2018 referendum is that voters felt that their vote counted. I have voted in every General Election for some 45= years now, in different parts of England, and only once in all that time has my vote been part of the winning candidate's majority. And it cost me some pangs to do it. I'm not at all surprised that public apathy is rife when people feel that their vote counts for very little or nothing at all.

And, while we're at it, I think that all bona fide political parties should be publicly funded, taking no 'donations' from anyone, and that MPs should be banned from working for anything apart from publicly funded institutions while they are an MP.