British politics

Page 16 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
What about them? They expressed their vote.

So much an issue for their future, they decided to stay at home.

16-17 would have likely been even less than the 18-24 group of 36% going by the above percentages.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re:

Brullnux said:
What about the youth who did vote, or the 16-17 year olds who would've voted but weren't allowed to. It's not nice to have your future decided when you don't have a say.
....I guess you could extend the demographic to those not born yet but the bottom line is there were enough votes floating around that could have changed the result and they simply weren't used....and the worst offenders were the ones screaming the loudest now....sorry but its a situation that really doesn't inspire much sympathy...

....and yes agree to the bolded....but then voting is fairly simple thing to do for those that could have...like how important was that half hour or so that it would have taken to vote, especially given the results...and they will have a long long time to ruminate on their decision...

Cheers
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Re: Re:

Jagartrott said:
The Hitch said:
Politically, that was one hell of a gamble from Boris, when it seemed near certain remain would win. Seems to have paid off big time.
I've read some commentaries saying BJ actually would have preferred a narrow 'remain' vote. It would've made him stand out as principal, it would have given the UK more leverage in the EU, and it wouldn't have caused any (short-term) economic issues.
True. This pair do not look like two men who have just claimed the victory of their lifetimes.

 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Amsterhammer said:
PremierAndrew said:
Half of Northern Ireland voted leave, half voted to stay. Everything else on that graphic is accurate though
Serious question as I honestly don't know - are you saying that Republicans voted remain, while Unionists voted leave?
Well, I don't really know either. But the areas closer to the Irish border voted to remain, while those closer to the coast and away from the Irish border voted to leave.

Also, I stand corrected. Previously thought I saw somewhere that 65%ish of 18-24 yos voted.



Maybe remain would have won after all if the younger ones could be bothered to turn up at the polling stations
So the actual turnout for 18-24 is probably even less than the 43% in the last general election. Yeah, they blew it themselves.

As for NI, the vote seems to be mostly along sectarian lines with the exception of North Down which I gather is one of the more prosperous areas
 
Ah, the old people have just done what old people do well, which is utilise their right to vote. My grandparents were huge sticklers for it, and made sure the concept of use of vote, and the struggles that went before getting it, were drummed into my parents. In a sense it has flowed down to me - I have always voted. Occasionally I have spoils my ballot paper but I have always gone to the polling station.

For many of the young, they have never voted. I know several people - some in their thirties - who only voted for the first time on Thursday. One, who didn't vote because he was told at the polling station he hadn't registered. He didn't know he had to, thinking, seriously, that because he pays tax he has a vote. He is 34.

So suck it up and think about it. These are the young radicals, but they will only be listened to in policy terms if the politicos know they will vote en bloc. Hopefully this is a turning point. They must remain politically vigil and not just hope that they will continue to have their backsides wiped for them.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Re:

Avoriaz said:
For many of the young, they have never voted. I know several people - some in their thirties - who only voted for the first time on Thursday. One, who didn't vote because he was told at the polling station he hadn't registered. He didn't know he had to, thinking, seriously, that because he pays tax he has a vote. He is 34.
There are many countries where voter registration is done automatically by the government and it's an idea we should follow if we want to promote turnout.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re:

Avoriaz said:
Ah, the old people have just done what old people do well, which is utilise their right to vote. My grandparents were huge sticklers for it, and made sure the concept of use of vote, and the struggles that went before getting it, were drummed into my parents. In a sense it has flowed down to me - I have always voted. Occasionally I have spoils my ballot paper but I have always gone to the polling station.

For many of the young, they have never voted. I know several people - some in their thirties - who only voted for the first time on Thursday. One, who didn't vote because he was told at the polling station he hadn't registered. He didn't know he had to, thinking, seriously, that because he pays tax he has a vote. He is 34.

So suck it up and think about it. These are the young radicals, but they will only be listened to in policy terms if the politicos know they will vote en bloc. Hopefully this is a turning point. They must remain politically vigil and not just hope that they will continue to have their backsides wiped for them.
...one can only hope...it certainly played that way in our last federal election to very good results....

...and to the bolded my experience as well....its such a simple thing to do and it really does have an affect if citizens act like citizens....

Cheers
 
I read on Facebook someone, middle aged, was saying how that we shouldn't worry because if the young generation begin to all care about politics, right now there is a large gap between those who care massively (like me) and others who pay no regard to it, then we will be in good hands. Because, this is the same youth that supported Bernie, Podemos in Spain, even Corbyn and Remain in the UK. More so than the previous generation of third-wayers, this generation across not only Europe but the world dares to dream of a more social, equal world. I hope that this worldview does not change as it often does and they stay optimistic, and their voice can be heard more once we get older, as long as there are more and more politicians like them. So maybe there is reason to be optimistic. Maybe the future of the world is in progressive hands. We can dream. No harm will come of it.
 
Re:

Brullnux said:
I read on Facebook someone, middle aged, was saying how that we shouldn't worry because if the young generation begin to all care about politics, right now there is a large gap between those who care massively (like me) and others who pay no regard to it, then we will be in good hands. Because, this is the same youth that supported Bernie, Podemos in Spain, even Corbyn and Remain in the UK. More so than the previous generation of third-wayers, this generation across not only Europe but the world dares to dream of a more social, equal world. I hope that this worldview does not change as it often does and they stay optimistic, and their voice can be heard more once we get older, as long as there are more and more politicians like them. So maybe there is reason to be optimistic. Maybe the future of the world is in progressive hands. We can dream. No harm will come of it.
The youth of today care about a social equal world? Really?

Honest to god I have no clue where such an idea would come from.

There are some kind people amongst the youth of today, as there are amongst all age groups, who do care about the rest of the world, but it's really few and far between.
 
One of the questions about the Brexit poll results by age is, Why? And then what it could mean. The EU was founded about 26 years ago in 1993 and now consists of 28 participating countries, with the purpose of forming a single market that allows free trade (goods, capital, services) between the participating member countries. This is significant from the standpoint that most young people today (under age 26 to about 30 years of age) never grew up knowing what it was like to require a passport to travel country to country and go through all the border check processes. Border checks that will result for Brits traveling throughout Europe might be seen as a big inconvenience for the young Brits.

I think the older generation, having experienced border checks, sees this inconvenience as necessary to protect British borders. For instance, one of the effects caused by the formation of the EU was the elimination of border control procedures (passport etc), even though the EU intended to perform border checks for anyone entering the 28 participating countries. However, it is questionable how well these EU border checks are working as seen by the rapid influx of peoples from Muslim nations, and increased terrorist activity in the EU sector. I would not be surprised if one of the main purposes why Britain would exit the EU is to shore up their borders to reduce terrorist activity inside Britain, or at least make it more difficult and therefore easier to diffuse terrorist activity before a terrorist act is carried out.

Then you have to consider what GB is getting out being a member country of the EU. Countries like GB have had to pour monies into countries like Greece to keep them afloat. Maybe GB has decided enough of that.

Not only Britain, but the Scandinavian countries are said to be considering leaving the EU for the same reasons.

So, economically what might it mean for Britain to leave the EU? Interestingly, GB never adopted the Euro currency. They maintained using their British Pound. GB is an intelligent, industrialized country. Even if the British Pound takes a beating and devalues, in the long run this will be seen as a good thing because British products, goods, and services will become far more competitive globally. Global demand for British goods and services will increase, fuel the British economy, and create jobs. And that is a good thing for any Brit.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Brullnux said:
I read on Facebook someone, middle aged, was saying how that we shouldn't worry because if the young generation begin to all care about politics, right now there is a large gap between those who care massively (like me) and others who pay no regard to it, then we will be in good hands. Because, this is the same youth that supported Bernie, Podemos in Spain, even Corbyn and Remain in the UK. More so than the previous generation of third-wayers, this generation across not only Europe but the world dares to dream of a more social, equal world. I hope that this worldview does not change as it often does and they stay optimistic, and their voice can be heard more once we get older, as long as there are more and more politicians like them. So maybe there is reason to be optimistic. Maybe the future of the world is in progressive hands. We can dream. No harm will come of it.
The youth of today care about a social equal world? Really?

Honest to god I have no clue where such an idea would come from.

There are some kind people amongst the youth of today, as there are amongst all age groups, who do care about the rest of the world, but it's really few and far between.
I was just tying to find some positives, although they are hard to come by :eek:

The Labour coup has started. Hillary Benn sacked, shadow Health Secretary resigns. Apparently 80% of the PLP want Corbyn to leave, but he still has party membership support. Besides, who wants another Blairite government?

The problem the PLP has is that for the most part it is completely out of sync with the membership and also the voters. They think they know what the people want, but they don't. Ever since 2000 really this has been the case. If Corbyn does resign, someone else from the left needs to take over, perhaps McDonnell. Although his comments on the IRA may make the Daily Mail mad, he is a smart competent man
 
on3m@n@rmy said:
One of the questions about the Brexit poll results by age is, Why?
us english don't like being told what to do.....most of all by a bureaucratic organization

seemingly beyond our control in brussels ....that's why many chose 'leave'

now i read 'remain' have a monster petition calling for re-run as % voting 'leave'' was

not large enough proportion to be binding....even though smaller % is ok for

general election etc

Mark L
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....could the following possibly be true ?....and if so what are the possible real world repercussions....

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction
.

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Polling publishing on Sunday confirmed a surge in support for independence since the EU referendum result.

A Panelbase survey for the Sunday Times indicated an almost direct reversal of the result of the 2014 referendum, with 52% in favour of independence, up seven points, and 48% against, down seven points.

The snapshot of 620 adults also found that 52% thought Scotland was likely to become independent within 10 years, rising from 30% when the same question was asked in April.

A poll for the Sunday Post that asked respondents how they would vote if a second referendum were held tomorrow, revealed 59% would vote yes to independence, 32% no and 9% undecided.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/nicola-sturgeon-new-scottish-referendum-brexit

Cheers
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Re:

blutto said:
....could the following possibly be true ?....and if so what are the possible real world repercussions....

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction
.

Cheers
Ignoring the referendum is possible in legal terms but insane in practical terms.

I voted for Remain, but I only think there should be a second referendum if there is a very significant change in cirumstances (e.g. Scotland leaving the UK, a snap election being held where the winner runs with an explicitly pro-EU manifesto). That's why I haven't signed, and won't sign, the petition for a second referendum.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
blutto said:
....could the following possibly be true ?....and if so what are the possible real world repercussions....

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction
.

Cheers
Ignoring the referendum is possible in legal terms but insane in practical terms.

I voted for Remain, but I only think there should be a second referendum if there is a very significant change in cirumstances (e.g. Scotland leaving the UK, a snap election being held where the winner runs with an explicitly pro-EU manifesto). That's why I haven't signed, and won't sign, the petition for a second referendum.
....got the following from the comments section that brought up quote in my earlier post....

Boris has been checkmated by Cameron. The Brexit ringleaders expected

Cameron to trigger Article 50 immediately after the vote, and to take the lethal political hit from all the fallout.

He has refused to do that and has resigned instead, leaving the now poisonous political moves to his successor. Boris would be declared DOA even if he did manage to get the Premiership. Thus, the "poison chalice" allusion.

48 hours after the fact and Britain is reeling, waking up to the reality they have ignorantly wrought.

For the Brexit Bandits, Brexit has always been a naked ploy to gain power--nothing more. Gaining that power would now mean their nearly instantaneous political death.
....and....

Boris Johnson, like Trump, if elected HAS to follow through on Brexit (or Trump 'tearing up'

all kinds of international agreements). Voters would abandon them in an instant if they did not follow through. It is the reason they were elected - if they are elected.


If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements.

If (Trump) runs, wins and pulls the (US out of NAFTA and the WTO), then it will all be over - a recession ... broken trade agreements.

Only in Trump's case he would be around for 4 years to continue to do damage to the US. Johnson might get replaced much sooner than that
....this is complicated beyond my pay grade...could anybody a few more brain cells than I and some more knowledge of Brit politics please chime in because is really starting to develop into a real juicy soap opera and I really want to follow this with some understanding of the plot possibilities....

Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY