Off topic - TV debate

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 14 hours, 21 minutes ago
I don’t have an issue with a pm staying neutral in a referendum, in fact I think they should do if it is about a potential policy that isn’t part of the manifesto.

I don’t agree with referendums in general though with our current political makeup. It works much better in countries that are used to more cross party working.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Genuinely amazed by this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? If it’s not part of party policy, then it’s clearly not an agreed upon issue. If the party leader (I.e. the pm) stays neutral, then they can still continue regardless of the outcome. If they don’t, then you have situations like what happened to Cameron.

If the entire party agrees then it’s not an issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

We elect MPs, including the Prime Minister.

This is a matter that would be debated in parliament and campaigned for and against.

The idea that the most senior politician in the country doesn’t express any view is utterly absurd - both because of the importance of the vote itself and because of what comes next.

The PM is not neutral and isn’t expected to be neutral, so pretending to be so is dishonest and unhelpful to say the least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We elect MPs to make those decisions for us, which is why we’ve only ever had three national referendums. Personally, on issues they cannot come to a consensus to that requires them to go back out to the public for a decision, I’d rather the leader of parliament to remain neutral and see their position more as ensuring the public have the greatest access to facts and impacts in order to make their decision.

Like I said, I don’t like referendums in this country anyway. We don’t have a parliamentary system that suits it (as the last three years have proven!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Melton, I don’t believe you’re truly this naive.

Access to the facts? When it comes to an EU referendum, there aren’t really straightforward facts.

There are various stats and data that can be manipulated to suit one view and there are projections about the future.

The idea that the PM can remain neutral and just publish what the public need in order to make a decision is just entirely inaccurate.

It’s also not true to say that the only reason we elect MPs is to vote. They are supposed to be a source of information and a representative in debates for their constituency.

The idea that your elected MP just sits in silence while that referendum campaign is run is absurd and not remotely realistic.

Have no doubt, Corbyn would campaign for one side of the vote.

Yes because you’re judging it on our current system, which is exactly why I say referendums don’t really work in this country. You’re arguing a different point that if I was talking about, I’d agree wholeheartedly with. Naivety is exactly what has caused this entire issue as we’ve gone whole hog into identity politics and glib soundbytes. That’s fine, it’s ever been thus, but the biggest opportunity to me with the EU referendum was if it could force a change in how we do our domestic politics. It won’t though as we’ve doubled down on it instead.

What I think will happen, rather than the more general
issue I was talking about, is that if Corbyn gets a deal that meets his six points, he’ll campaign for that. He won’t say that in this campaign though as primarily he doesn’t want to lose the remain vote (which he will to an extent anyway) and he doesn’t know with certainty he’ll achieve it. He’s also trying to structure it so that if he is in power and it goes to referendum, he positions himself in a way to carry on post it.

meltonblue (U10617)

"He won’t say that in this campaign though as primarily he doesn’t want to lose the remain vote"

And that is dishonest.

Listen, I don't disagree with his motives and he's doing what he thinks is best for him and his party.

But it's not reasonable to suggest that is best for the UK public, who in my view deserve to know his intentions.

If you're a remain voter and you know that the Lib Dems will be focusing on cancelling Brexit, then what are you to make of Corbyn's offer?

We have no idea what he will do because he won't tell us.

I can't believe you think that's a credible position to take.

In our current system, I don’t think it’s a credible position to take, I said I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Well, let me rephrase that, personally I don't think either are credible until he has actually negotiated a deal, but I think he has to set out his position regardless.

"I don’t have an issue with a pm staying neutral in a referendum, in fact I think they should do if it is about a potential policy that isn’t part of the manifesto."

Okay well maybe I've misunderstood, but this is the part I was responding to.

Yes, and I caveated that with it not happening being one of the reasons why referendums don't really work in this country.

That is what I'd prefer, it has precedence (even in this country, although it didn't work - Wilson in the seventies) and is what other countries that are more used to referendums do quite often. I know it won't and can't happen in our current system though (for multiple reasons, no proportional representation being one of them), it's just what I'd rather move to.

What I would do if I was Corbyn would be to say "I will negotiate a deal with the EU that meets all of our six lines and if we get that, I will campaign for that deal. If we don't, I will assess the deal I am able to get and decide then". Again, that won't work either, but that to me would be a credible message. It won't for a lot of others though who feel the need to know now.

*and that's why he's in a no win situation either way. He should have gone on the offensive with Johnson about his Brexit deal the other day in the leaders debate. He can't though because he has no position of strength to argue from.

meltonblue (U10617)

From what I recall reading, Wilson played a clever game rather than playing a neutral game.

Corbyn has tried to repeat it and failed, thus far.

He started off neutral and tried to remain that way but failed basically, still far more neutral than people expect nowadays.

I agree about Corbyn though, I've never thought of him as particularly bright to be honest. I've said a few times, he went to the same school as me and came back a few times to give a talk. I didn't agree with him much!