An election looms, so I think it is time to look at all the success over the 13 years that we have witnessed from the government.

Stop Starmer

twitter.com/KernowDamo/status/1690685712306257920?s=20

Stop Starmer
@starmer_stop

The campaign to stop the most untrustworthy politician this country has seen.
stopstarmer.co.uk

MaizieD

^If Cameron had thought more carefully about it he could have promoted a short Bill setting the bar at 66%.^

When the referendum bill was debated the SNP proposed an amendment to ensure that a supermajority was required for a Leave result to be implemented. Naturally the tories wouldn't accept that amendment and anyway, they were sure it wasn't necessary because Remain would win.

The rest is history...

Tragic history indeed, but please, let's not call it 'Democracy' - it was nothing of the sort.

If Cameron had thought more carefully about it he could have promoted a short Bill setting the bar at 66%.

When the referendum bill was debated the SNP proposed an amendment to ensure that a supermajority was required for a Leave result to be implemented. Naturally the tories wouldn't accept that amendment and anyway, they were sure it wasn't necessary because Remain would win.

The rest is history...

Germanshepherdsmum

I think that abiding by the result of the referendum was the right thing to do, even though the result wasn’t the one I wanted. Imagine the furore if the majority decision, no matter how flawed some of us might think it was, had been ignored.

I accept, as I said, that the minority are obligated in our democracy to accept the majority decisions in Parliament but Cameron undermined the Commons and Lords by saying the government would do whatever the Referendum outcome was. Of course, Farage and his followers would have been noisy if Parliament had voted simply to note an advisory Referendum result but short of fomenting an unlawful insurrection they would have been ineffective. If Cameron had thought more carefully about it he could have promoted a short Bill setting the bar at 66%.

Fascinating, thanks DAR. Sadly re-affirming as well.

Some people enjoy what would have once have been the "long read" in the "better" newspapers or news magazines. This has now been largely replaced or reproduced by the podcast or YouTube video replicating the article.

This is one from the Financial Times that you may find interesting as it covers the biggest act of this government.

My opinion of the FT is that it doesn't set out to report either from the left or the right. It sets out to report economics. It does seem to me to be right leaning because many of the economists are of the right but I feel still think it gives a reasoned and justifiable view.

I would suggest that commenting on it without watching it is probably not going to get us very far, but I do hope some of you enjoy it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO2lWmgEK1Y

The referendum was supposed to be “advisory”.
I think that has been forgotten. Although I think it is looked at again in 2025. Might be wrong on the date.

In reply to various posters.

I do wonder where people's logic has gone!

Of course it's possible to generalise. What you are complaining about is that the generalisation isn't exactly you. But that's because it is a generalisation.

The whole thing about "competing legitimacies" is that there are arguments for and against any outcome DiamondLily. It shows the poorest of management skills, which have noticeably continued, if not worsened.

The biggest issue with a plebiscite is that although there may be a sense of political pressure there is no legal requirement to follow the outcome.

No, it was right it was abided by.

We had a vote in the 1970's (?), as to whether we wished to remain in the then Common Market.

The majority said yes, so we stayed in.

It may have been a mistake to vote "Leave", and it wasn't helped by Johnson and co not having a clue what to do with it all, but we've got to try and make the best of it.

Closer friendship and easier trading with the EU might be good though.

Germanshepherdsmum

I think that abiding by the result of the referendum was the right thing to do, even though the result wasn’t the one I wanted. Imagine the furore if the majority decision, no matter how flawed some of us might think it was, had been ignored.

I'm not sure how it could have been "ignored". Parliament had the say on how it was interpreted.

It was advisory (sometimes called a plebiscite elsewhere). Nothing was predetermined, new legislation had not been put in place on which we were voting. No minimum percentage of voters was required nor was a super majority.

The issue of competing legitimacies was totally apparent before the vote.

Once the Electoral Commission declared that the result should be nil and void, then Democracy was out of the windoy- especially with such a tiny minority.

I think that abiding by the result of the referendum was the right thing to do, even though the result wasn’t the one I wanted. Imagine the furore if the majority decision, no matter how flawed some of us might think it was, had been ignored.

Germanshepherdsmum

People wanted their say about leaving the EU. They had their say. The government acted democratically by allowing, and by honouring the result of, the referendum. We still have a lot of people, even on GN, saying they’re pleased about the result despite some of the consequences and despite evidence that misleading comments were made. I voted to remain. I accepted, with some difficulty, that I was not one of the majority.

I voted Remain too but I think Cameron, by promising to enact the Referendum result, undermined Parliamentary democracy. Referendums do not have lawful decision-making power in the UK. That rests with Parliament. I accept the decision that Parliament made: that is an obligation of a democratic minority but it does not mean one is constrained not to campaign to rejoin the EU.

People wanted their say about leaving the EU. They had their say. The government acted democratically by allowing, and by honouring the result of, the referendum. We still have a lot of people, even on GN, saying they’re pleased about the result despite some of the consequences and despite evidence that misleading comments were made. I voted to remain. I accepted, with some difficulty, that I was not one of the majority.

For me the Tories committed the most grievous crime against the nation by leaving the EU. I do think that Rishi Sunak is a great improvement on Boris and Liz and way more intelligent than Theresa May or David Cameron.

However for the best national outcome I plump for Labour under Sir Kier Starmer in the hope that he seek to heal the damage done by Brexit though it. will take years for us to rejoin the EU. I n order to keep the extreme right at bay he may look at the electoral system and move towards a PR based sytem.

Not a promising future but we need to escape the corrupt recent past typified by Johnson, Truss, Rees-Mogg. They probably have some followers just as some Americans still beieve in Trump. How did it all go so WRONG?

Casdon

Germanshepherdsmum

Don’t we?

Well I can only speak for myself, but no, I don’t because I accept that we’ve got to help those who are less fortunate than we are. I’ll still be lucky in comparison so I count my blessings, and those of my family.

I havent before.

But it is possible I could this time?
There are so many ways any government wastes money nowadays.
May be time to be more selfish?
I dont know. Not thought about that aspect until now.

Germanshepherdsmum

Higher income, capital gains, dividend and inheritance taxes. I see all of that coming with a Labour government.

I've no problem if income, capital gains, dividend tax rates need to go up a bit. If for example, income tax was 50% over 250k and Capital gains tax was max 35% - apart from people being unhappy, good progress.

I see no reason to 'redistribute assets' upon which tax has already been paid - Inheritance tax is quite unpopular with me.

If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it!
Exactly. Who looks at the labels before buying?

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyGravy13

Fleurpepper any examples of me attacking posters ?

I thought we had just been discussing one.

Not at all, I disagreed with a post made by a poster and posted as such.

At no time did I attack the poster.

Calling someone "rude" is a personal attack, just as any name calling is. Nothing was said that was in any way impolite or discourteous towards you.

Just becase you disagree with a post does not mean someone is being "rude", nor does it mean you - or they - are right. It just means you disagree. Disagreements can be discussed: name calling makes discussion very difficult and is almost certainly outside GN rules.

DaisyAnneReturns

I have NEVER called a poster rude.

But if it makes you feel superior to carry on attacking me for something I haven’t done feel free…

MerylStreep

Kate59
I can’t speak for other areas but your assumption couldn’t be more wrong in my area, Southend.
Waitrose is a spit away from the largest social Housing estate in Southend.
You could buy this house and walk to Lidl in 5 minutes.

assets.savills.com/properties/GBLHCHLAC160019/LAC160019_CHS18005922.PDF

If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it!

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyGravy13

Fleurpepper any examples of me attacking posters ?

I thought we had just been discussing one.

Not at all, I disagreed with a post made by a poster and posted as such.

At no time did I attack the poster.

Calling someone "rude" is a personal attack, just as any name calling is. Nothing was said that was in any way impolite or discourteous towards you.

Just becase you disagree with a post does not mean someone is being "rude", nor does it mean you - or they - are right. It just means you disagree. Disagreements can be discussed: name calling makes discussion very difficult and is almost certainly outside GN rules.

Kate59
I can’t speak for other areas but your assumption couldn’t be more wrong in my area, Southend.
Waitrose is a spit away from the largest social Housing estate in Southend.
You could buy this house and walk to Lidl in 5 minutes.

assets.savills.com/properties/GBLHCHLAC160019/LAC160019_CHS18005922.PDF

Ideally of course, a government would 'level-up' without stifling entrepreneurs, business and investment.

The first requirement would be a government that actually wanted to do that.

I'm not an economist (patently obvious) and have no idea how any government could balance such an act - but I sure as heck don't believe this current one has the slightest interest nor intent in that direction. They appear for the most part to be a bunch of self-serving, sometimes incompetent, individuals.

How Labour would perform under Starmer is anyone's guess. I don't think he's a 'leftie' in the traditional, working-class, sense, and some people think he's shrewd. But rather him than me - if he forms the next government, he's going to have a heck of a job on his hands - and he's going to have to run with both hares and hounds to a large extent (IMO).

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyGravy13

Fleurpepper any examples of me attacking posters ?

I thought we had just been discussing one.

Not at all, I disagreed with a post made by a poster and posted as such.

At no time did I attack the poster.