Jump to content
Jacko51

Do we live in a kakistocracy?

Recommended Posts

Highly likely but my understanding of the meaning of the word "Kak" (Or is it spelt Cac or Cack)  is different from that.......but then again perhaps not......lol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a pretty fair description of the current government.

A PM elected by less people than voted for the Bake Off winner. A chief adviser who was found to be in contempt of Parliament. And most of them are either incompetent or liars or a combination of the two. Who is the worst member of the Cabinet? Tough choice. So many snake-oil salesmen and purveyors of fake news. 

Equally applicable is the word hackistocracy. Maybe even more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheSage said:

Sounds like a pretty fair description of the current government.

A PM elected by less people than voted for the Bake Off winner. A chief adviser who was found to be in contempt of Parliament. And most of them are either incompetent or liars or a combination of the two. Who is the worst member of the Cabinet? Tough choice. So many snake-oil salesmen and purveyors of fake news. 

Equally applicable is the word hackistocracy. Maybe even more so.

How can you justify banging on and on about how many people elected Boris (which was the same as virtually all conservative PMs) yet spend 3 years denying the result of the largest ever political mandate in uk history? 

Genuine question please if you could kindly answer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no mandate for No deal. There was a vote to leave but there were 3-4 different scenarios discussed. Leave was never explained in a manifesto. If you are so confident that there was          put it to another vote. 

I was reluctantly inclined to go along with the vote, but looking back I think we were conned. All the guff about an easy deal and we hold all the cards. I'm sorry but all that has been proven to be untrue. There was never a plan and I don't believe voters were told the truth.

Image result for lions led by donkeys brexit

Subsequently we have seen the Electoral Commission fine several bodies on the leave side and police enquiries are continuing. We also know how Cummings paid to get hold of people's on-line profiles without their consent and knowledge and targeted them with propaganda, like all the Turks coming here. That makes me very uncomfortable.

I know not everyone who voted leave fell for these tricks and I know most voted with sincere intentions. At the end of the day we all want the best for the UK. But I'm now quite uncomfortable with the way its panned out and being pushed into a catastrophic No Deal nonsense that most voters don't want.

I could live with a 'sensible' deal that did not trash the economy or put at risk the UK's future and the Irish border but not this I'm afraid. That's why Parliament don't want it.

You also keep on about this big mandate and 17.4 million. I get that. More wanted out than in. But 16 m plus didn't vote out. It was not a mandate for a No Deal. We live in a Parliamentary democracy, not a society in which the people decide every policy. It was an advisory referendum but yes parties said they'd honour the vote back then.                                                                                                With such a close result the only way you might have brought folk together was to negotiate a sensible middle of the road Brexit but that chance looks like it's now gone.

Above all, for the life of me, I can't fathom why the EU has suddenly become such a bone of contention and has monopolised all of our lives. It was fine and peaceful in 2015. Three years on we are a divided nation, have "wasted" around £80 billion already and rising (money that could have gone on hospitals and schools) and this sore will run and run. It isn't worth it. But the Cummings and Banks of this world wanted to sow the seeds of chaos and anarchy & make money from the falling pound and deregulation. They have done a pretty good job. Our fragile economy, after years of austerity, won't cope. And we've got a disgruntled and divided UK.

I understand why leavers are hopping mad, after winning the vote, but in light of the past three years I feel increasingly uneasy about it all and I honestly don't think that had we known then what we know now that we would have voted this way. 

Of course you'll disagree 100%. That's fine. But I have tried to answer you question as a (biased) remainer!

 

 

                                                                                                           

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that, good post. I do disagree with most of it obviously, however.

Do you not feel we have tried a middle of the road compromise brexit but that it has proven impossible? 

Parliament has voted for no deal after all but rejected the compromise brexit three times.

Edited by Regal Beagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheSage said:

With such a close result the only way you might have brought folk together was to negotiate a sensible middle of the road Brexit

                                                                                                           

To be honest, I thought that was what May had done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a rag bag coalition to stop an elected government carrying out the will of the people on one solitary issue..... probably.

Considering the priorities of the parties concerned.

Labour want to stop a Tory brexit not a Labour brexit.

Libs want to stop any brexit, including a Labour brexit.

SNP want independence.

Add in the disillusioned,  dissafected  and dodgy 

Most of the MPs have been elected as representatives of a party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


If it had been properly debated and explained to the people of the UK that Brexit would mean they would most likely be left poorer I doubt a majority would have voted to leave. Who in their right mind would vote to become poorer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

How can you justify banging on and on about how many people elected Boris (which was the same as virtually all conservative PMs) yet spend 3 years denying the result of the largest ever political mandate in uk history? 

Genuine question please if you could kindly answer? 

To correct you again Regal, the Referendum in June 2016 wasn't the largest ever political mandate in uk history. Continuing to post incorrect information to try to support and beef up your weak and tenuous arguments and point of view is really the only tactic you have.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-referendum-not-largest-democratic-exercise/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest it would depend on your angle of vision.

Although the referendum was not the largest number of votes cast overall, the leave vote did command the largest number of votes cast in a democratic choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

To correct you again Regal, the Referendum in June 2016 wasn't the largest ever political mandate in uk history. Continuing to post incorrect information to try to support and beef up your weak and tenuous arguments and point of view is really the only tactic you have.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-referendum-not-largest-democratic-exercise/

Paul, the link you have posted literally says: no electoral option has ever received more votes than the 17.4m leave votes in 2016. 

It is there in black and white on your own link. 

What on earth is going on, on this website? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geosname said:

I would suggest it would depend on your angle of vision.

Although the referendum was not the largest number of votes cast overall, the leave vote did command the largest number of votes cast in a democratic choice.

The leave vote was 32,000 more than the 1975 remain vote yet the electorate was 6 million larger this time.  So as a percentage of the electorate it was not the largest ever mandate in terms of percentage of the electorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again we descend into argument and counter argument backed up by stats interpreted to prove or disprove and presented as fact.

In terms of actual crosses in a box it was the largest mandate.  In terms of percentage of electorate it wasn't, that is the actual fact of this stat.  No amount of word play or huffing and puffing will change it and in the end, when people get on the merry go round of repeating there argument it only serves to wind yourselves up.

Just like the country and parliament,  this forum is split with people entrenched in there own viewpoint.  As with everything in life, both arguments have merit and both are also flawed.

The middle ground is where the majority of people from either side will feel most comfortable, neither to extreme one way or the other and as such, despite the "mandate" (whatever that really means as I dont remember there being several Brexit options on the ballot and whilst leave won, there is absolutely zero indication that all those people wanted a hard line brexit nor is there proof that they didnt but history tells us centre ground is generally the right approach to most things) a deal must be struck with our neighbours at the EU.  This allows us to withdraw and thus carry out the will of the people whilst not completely negating the other half (near is as damn it) of the nations wishes also.  Now what exactly is wrong with a compromise which keeps the majority of people from both camps happy?

Now of course if you are a hard line brexiteer, you wont be happy with a compromise because you want what YOU want.  If you are a deep seated remainer the same is true of you also.  I  am afraid the extremes of an argument never have and never will win, and nor can it.

My advice, chill out.  You all know each others stance, you are not going to change each others minds so learn to accept that and stop winding yourselves up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with most of that.

There is no dispute that the leave vote won and got more votes. Incidentally, if you want to phrase it like that the remain vote was the third largest mandate in history. Going back to what is termed a "mandate", I don't think you can legitimately claim that a 52:48 result gives you carte blanche to go down an extreme and damaging path. Most of us agree that there was no overwhelming vote for No Deal (because of the different ways mooted of leaving) and I guess most would also point out that the government represents everyone in the country, not just a small minority.

Had around 650,000 people voted differently then the result would have flipped and that's why the irregular and questionable behaviour of Cummings is significant. 

For me, if we are arguing biggest mandate, then we should be looking at the margin between the two. A bigger number (and one you would expect given the growing population) is not as crucial as the gap between the two sides.  For instance, is a 50.3 v 49.7 result in the US a bigger mandate than the 90 v 10 in Slovenia? I'd say the latter. I suspect most people would.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacko51 said:

The leave vote was 32,000 more than the 1975 remain vote yet the electorate was 6 million larger this time.  So as a percentage of the electorate it was not the largest ever mandate in terms of percentage of the electorate.

As I said it depends on your angle of vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantities of oranges and apples can be compared as totals, but not as suitable for marmalade. MPs can claim a mandate from an election, but not from a advisory referendum, The AV referendum was mandatory,  but we have had 3 years of dithering and perhaps 10 years of trade arguments to come, which could have been avoided with a proper vote with a threshold of 50% of the electorate or 60% of the vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Watch Port Vale Videos

  • Advert




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy