What D'you Think Of This ?

[1rovert]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brexit-over-1-000-barristers-053829124.html

[naomi24]

Jim, //I'm a scientist. We don't do "yes or no" unless we absolutely have to. //

Rubbish! That's a cop out.

[Zacs-Master]

You'll only get a 'yes' or 'no' out of a scientist when they're absolutely certain the funding has dried up. ;-)

[DTCwordfan]

think more closely about what JSM said, naomi.....in true fashion from him, there's a double edge to the meaning.

[naomi24]

JSM?

[Hypognosis]

@jim360 (Tue 09:28)

//And now, having voted in principle to "take back control" and give it to the UK parliament, should not the rules for electing that body be reconsidered too? //

You've studied and spoken eloquently about multiple variants of proportional representation, on AB, in the past and it's your prerogative to spend a lifetime campaigning for it. You are younger than many other contributors so have the advantage of time on your side. The more we engage the young in politics and the more of them who are up to tertiary education standard, the more will be the enthusiasm for reform and making the HoC even more representative of public opinion than at present.

// At least some of the reason this debate about parliament being allowed to vote on Article 50 is so controversial is because of a not unreasonable concern that parliament might reject the referendum result. //

Not 'might': will, by all accounts of MP declared stances on Brexit.

// Such a vote could hardly be representative -- and yet parliament is elected by the principle of representative democracy. //

But it has always been twisted into its present shape. We could elect 650 true independents but can you imagine the turgidity of trying to get agreements over anything or the random changes of direction which would result from members voting with their conscience?

Indeed, since when do constituency voters construct a mandate or a manifesto with which to task their independent MP, in the chamber? We delegate that out of our own hands because it is too difficult or we're too busy trying to earn a living at a regular job.

That's where the disconnect is, imho. The referendum was the nearest thing we got to the ability to hand down a direct order to our government.

// Maybe some level of electoral reform might soon be back on the table? //

Reversing the sense of masters/servants would be a start. In some senses, this process is already underway.

[Old_Geezer]

"Can you imagine the turgidity of trying to get agreements over anything or the random changes of direction which would result from members voting with their conscience?"

I don't see this as an issue. Debates are scheduled, they don't last forever. All sides get a word in. Then the representatives vote. That's the way it already goes (well, more or less) when there is a free vote and no one whipping in. And changes of direction will hardly be random, they will have been debated and considered what is best.

[Hypognosis]

@naomi (Tues 17:42)

//
Jim, //ellipsis' comments and statistics about how the vote effectively amounts to a quarter of the total UK population (or a third of the adult population) imposing its will on the rest of it.//
//

Good and useful post by ellipsis. I did a similar shakedown on a general election result, such as "40% of the 60% who could be bothered to vote, voted Tory and 40% of 60% is 24%", by way of my expression of contempt for the result. (vaguely recall a real figure of 43% but you get my drift).

//
You know what ‘they’ say about statistics
//

Now I could be really pedandic and insist this percentage sophistry is merely simpke arithmatic but that would just be unpleasantly sarcastic.
:-P

//
but that aside, it’s reasonable to assume that those who didn’t bother to vote were happy to go with the majority verdict.
//

OR we could take the view that the distribution of their opinions (now this is drifting into statistical analysis) closely mirrors the distribution of opinions of the "sample". Indeed the sample size (voters) is larger than the number in the group with unknown voting intentions.

In real-life statistics, the task is to prove that the (tiny) sample is or is not representative of a larger population (because you cannot afford to conduct thecresearch survey on millions of individuals).

//
If they weren’t they’d have taken the trouble to vote.
//

Quite so. If they find themselves in the "lesson learned" zone, this was a heck of a painful way to learn it. Could be good for democracy if the sting increases turnouts in future GEs!

//
This constant whining is becoming really tedious.
//

I don't find it so. We are rightfully thrashing out discussion points which would repeat in future decades if not for the fact that google will bring people to these threads if they select the right phrases.

[Hypognosis]

@O_G

I often think things and then fail to write them into my posts. I forgot to move onto the part about independents clubbing together into parties being the logical thing to do. "Unity is strength" etc.

I was probably over 30 before I learned about the way MP's "pair off" with an opposing member and, by gentlemens' agreement (gender neutral), neither pass through the voting lobby. Or, stance fixed by party whips, do not even attend the debate and catch up with parliamentary office business. Hence a nearly empty HoC during what you might imagine was a highly contentious debate. If there are only limited numbers of things to throw into the debate, only limited numbers of speakers need attend.