'Labour would become the first opposition to be net losers since 1982'. That is not accurate - Labour lost seats in 1983 , 1987 and 1992. Going back further, Labour lost seats in 1959, 1960 and 1961.
First opposition net losers since 1992 in a non-General Election year it was meant to say. 83, 87, 92 were all General Election years which brings out the pro-government vote unlike midterm (non-GE) years.
Probably so - but I would point out that - unlike 1987 - in May 1983 at the time of Local Elections it was not obvious that there was to be a General Election called for the following month. The announcement came at fairly short notice after no more than 48 hours speculation. A week earlier the concensus was that there would be no election until the Autumn.
Also isn't the EU referendum the reason a Heathrow decision isn't being made?? What a useless government we have.
I think officially the VW diesel emissions scandal that broke in-between the airport inquiry and a decision needing to be made has led to another inquiry on the environmental impact on emissions.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
It's perhaps best not to go around this cycle again, but in my view you're very wrong. Leave are not giving the public the information they need to make a considered choice. That is their responsibility, and one they have not chosen to fix.
If you are campaigning, you should know what you're campaigning for. That means choosing between EEA or immigration control, as they're mutually exclusive. A such, they're lying to the public.
As a matter of interest, did anyone complain to the EC that there should be other options on the ballot? I can't remember.
So supposing Leave said they wanted the "all the way" out, option and campaigned on it, and Leave won, and the government said okay, we are leaving, your advise has been noted, but on balance we think joining the EEA is in the national interest.
Who is misleading the public. Leave were offering a prospectus they had no means to deliver. The government never made any bones about being pro-EU and in extremist pro-EEA. So Leave would be the ones misleading the public in this case as well.
Ah - so you are relying on the 2013 proposals! That would effectively restore the Ceredigion and Pembroke North seat that existed from 1983 until 1997 which was a LibDem stronghold! Regarding your point that a constituency stretching from Eglwyswrw to Milford Haven being too big, may I remind you that until 1983 the Pembrokeshire seat went from Eglwyswrw to beyond Pembroke Dock!
I got the village wrong. I have changed it. (I actually meant Eglwyswrw to Eglwysfach, but I realised nobody would know where they were apart from us so I kept Milford Haven instead.)
I think you will find Cynog Dafis won the Cardigan PN constituency in 1992. He was not a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrat position in Pembrokeshire has withered away completely. I say again, this would be a safe Conservative seat with Plaid, the LDs and Labour fighting for second.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
Christ on a bike. I guess we really DO have to go over this bit of cant every day. Leave don't get to make the call of what happens next, the government does, they could say EEA, or they could say full-Kipper "all the way out" makes not a blind bit of difference, the government gets to decide.
I know Remainers would love the Leave team to get into a huge argument about something which they can do nothing about, and to be honest given their general fuckwittery to date I am surprised they haven't.
You are asking the wrecking ball to come up with designs for the new building, I suggest you go and talk to the architect.
No.
If Leave came up with a considered position before the referendum, the people would have known what they were voting for. Then the government would have to take that into consideration during negotiations. If they do not, the the public will know that the government is not following their wishes.
At the moment, the people know nothing. It's up to leave to fill that vacuum.
And BTW, I'm not a remainer. I just think Leave have morally got this wrong in their understandable quest for as many votes as possible.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
It's perhaps best not to go around this cycle again, but in my view you're very wrong. Leave are not giving the public the information they need to make a considered choice. That is their responsibility, and one they have not chosen to fix.
If you are campaigning, you should know what you're campaigning for. That means choosing between EEA or immigration control, as they're mutually exclusive. A such, they're lying to the public.
As a matter of interest, did anyone complain to the EC that there should be other options on the ballot? I can't remember.
The options on the ballot are up to the government. Cameron's pledge was for an in-out referendum and so we are having an in-out referendum. The EC took representations on how that should be linguistically defined (ie moving away from Yes/No phrasing to a clearer Remain/Leave phrasing). However "what happens next" was never up for being added to the ballot as it was not Cameron's pledge and this is the vote he pledged and won an election on.
Leave are giving the public all the information we need. We have three options, we could leave and join the EEA (AKA the Norway option), we could leave and join the EFTA (AKA the Swiss option) or we could simply leave and sign free trade agreements (AKA the Canada/Kipper/WTO take your pick option).
Which choice the nation makes would be a choice for us to make after we vote leave, nobody on the leave side has any legal or democratic right to make that choice for us. It is dishonest for you to suggest otherwise. I want the EEA option and have said so. Farage wants the leave altogether option and has said so. There is no dishonesty.
And BTW, I'm not a remainer. I just think Leave have morally got this wrong in their understandable quest for as many votes as possible.
Morality went out the window a LONG time ago, it started going with Cameron saying he would join the EU on the basis of the deal if we were not in now, was on the horizon with mutterings about refugee camps in Kent and has long since move well out of view.
Leave would equally be morally in the wrong for offering a prospectus they had no means of delivering.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
Christ on a bike. I guess we really DO have to go over this bit of cant every day. Leave don't get to make the call of what happens next, the government does, they could say EEA, or they could say full-Kipper "all the way out" makes not a blind bit of difference, the government gets to decide.
I know Remainers would love the Leave team to get into a huge argument about something which they can do nothing about, and to be honest given their general fuckwittery to date I am surprised they haven't.
You are asking the wrecking ball to come up with designs for the new building, I suggest you go and talk to the architect.
No.
If Leave came up with a considered position before the referendum, the people would have known what they were voting for. Then the government would have to take that into consideration during negotiations. If they do not, the the public will know that the government is not following their wishes.
At the moment, the people know nothing. It's up to leave to fill that vacuum.
And BTW, I'm not a remainer. I just think Leave have morally got this wrong in their understandable quest for as many votes as possible.
Leave is the sum of all three (or 2.5 EEA and EFTA are quite equivalent) leave options. Who exactly do you think has any legal or democratic right to make the choice?
The breakdown of the yougov figures show 8% of 2015 Tory voters would now vote UKIP but only 3% have switched to Labour, canceled out by the 3% of Labour voters in 2015 who would now vote Tory. 21% of 2015 LD voters by contrast now back Labour. So since the election there has been no net movement between the Tories and Labour but there has been significant movement from the Tories to UKIP and some movement from the LDs to Labour
Why does this analysis give me a sense of Deja Vu?
Our Red Liberal crutch failed last time, and we ended up on our @rses.
Indeed but there has been further net shift from Tory to UKIP since the election which will likely increase post the referendum, the most likely result would probably be a hung parliament with the Tories likely largest party
I have £7.28 on UKIP most seats 500/1 at Paddy Power that I would be open to offers to if circumstances change.
Already down to 250/1
EDIT: I see they've priced the SNP most seats also at 250/1.
And BTW, I'm not a remainer. I just think Leave have morally got this wrong in their understandable quest for as many votes as possible.
Incidentally you are proposing in effect that the Leave campaign arrives at a proposal for what happens after a Leave vote and presents it to the voters as a fait-accomplis. Thereby disenfranchising anyone that wants a different result from Leave. At the moment no one is disenfranchised, all views are covered, people are either for IN or OUT. I don't see that Leave has any mandate to arrive at a potential solution that disenfranchises a quarter to a third of the population.
So supposing Leave said they wanted the "all the way" out, option and campaigned on it, and Leave won, and the government said okay, we are leaving, your advise has been noted, but on balance we think joining the EEA is in the national interest.
Who is misleading the public. Leave were offering a prospectus they had no means to deliver. The government never made any bones about being pro-EU and in extremist pro-EEA. So Leave would be the ones misleading the public in this case as well.
Leave are not offering a prospectus at all. They're offering contradictory promises: i.e. lies.
Leave could easily choose:
"We support EEA membership. If the government cannot manage that within (x months) after the vote then we, as a country, should be not in the EEA or EFTA."
Or:
"We do not wish to be in the EU or EEA, and want to be able to fully control immigration."
Both of those might be realisable during negotiation. If the government does not follow such a clear vote then it's their responsibility: leave have made the public's views clear.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government.
Untrue. Any proposals Leave makes will not and cannot bind the government.
Indeed. Apparently now Parliamentary Sovereignty has gone completely out the window and we now have government by opposition press release instead in My Jessop's imaginary world.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
It's perhaps best not to go around this cycle again, but in my view you're very wrong. Leave are not giving the public the information they need to make a considered choice. That is their responsibility, and one they have not chosen to fix.
If you are campaigning, you should know what you're campaigning for.
Yes, they're campaigning to Leave. What happens next is up to the government.
Ah - so you are relying on the 2013 proposals! That would effectively restore the Ceredigion and Pembroke North seat that existed from 1983 until 1997 which was a LibDem stronghold! Regarding your point that a constituency stretching from Eglwyswrw to Milford Haven being too big, may I remind you that until 1983 the Pembrokeshire seat went from Eglwyswrw to beyond Pembroke Dock!
I got the village wrong. I have changed it. (I actually meant Eglwyswrw to Eglwysfach, but I realised nobody would know where they were apart from us so I kept Milford Haven instead.)
I think you will find Cynog Dafis won the Cardigan PN constituency in 1992. He was not a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrat position in Pembrokeshire has withered away completely. I say again, this would be a safe Conservative seat with Plaid, the LDs and Labour fighting for second.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
So supposing Leave said they wanted the "all the way" out, option and campaigned on it, and Leave won, and the government said okay, we are leaving, your advise has been noted, but on balance we think joining the EEA is in the national interest.
Who is misleading the public. Leave were offering a prospectus they had no means to deliver. The government never made any bones about being pro-EU and in extremist pro-EEA. So Leave would be the ones misleading the public in this case as well.
Leave are not offering a prospectus at all. They're offering contradictory promises: i.e. lies.
Leave could easily choose:
"We support EEA membership. If the government cannot manage that within (x months) after the vote then we, as a country, should be not in the EEA or EFTA."
Or:
"We do not wish to be in the EU or EEA, and want to be able to fully control immigration."
Both of those might be realisable during negotiation. If the government does not follow such a clear vote then it's their responsibility: leave have made the public's views clear.
It ain't rocket science.
They are not offering a prospectus because this is not a General Election. This is a referendum on "do we remain or leave the European Union" and they are backing "leave". That is it.
Your attempts to foist clairvoyance on the future or decisions for what happens next onto one side of that are completely constitutionally invalid. It is YOU that is lying in suggesting that.
What happens next is up to Parliament to decide. Not a nebulous concept like leave.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
Christ on a bike. I guess we really DO have to go over this bit of cant every day. Leave don't get to make the call of what happens next, the government does, they could say EEA, or they could say full-Kipper "all the way out" makes not a blind bit of difference, the government gets to decide.
I know Remainers would love the Leave team to get into a huge argument about something which they can do nothing about, and to be honest given their general fuckwittery to date I am surprised they haven't.
You are asking the wrecking ball to come up with designs for the new building, I suggest you go and talk to the architect.
No.
If Leave came up with a considered position before the referendum, the people would have known what they were voting for. Then the government would have to take that into consideration during negotiations.
So - if George was indeed planning for an early referendum - is he now screwed?
Having spent his pennies on tax cuts while having to u-turn on some of the spending reductions, he can either go to the polls early as a divided infighting party, or give up his 'political' fiscal rules altogether (and therefore become Nasty Brown) or actually implement some huge cuts just before an election.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government.
Untrue. Any proposals Leave makes will not and cannot bind the government.
The government will have to try to follow what the voters want. If leave's prospectus was clear, they'd be slaughtered if they didn't follow it.
But leave's prospectus is as clear as mud.
Leave doesn't have a prospectus as this is a referendum not a General Election. Prospectuses (more commonly known as manifestos) are for General Elections because that elects are Parliament which then rules for five years.
After this referendum Parliament continues to rule on such matters, not remain or leave.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
It's perhaps best not to go around this cycle again, but in my view you're very wrong. Leave are not giving the public the information they need to make a considered choice. That is their responsibility, and one they have not chosen to fix.
If you are campaigning, you should know what you're campaigning for.
Yes, they're campaigning to Leave. What happens next is up to the government.
What does 'leave' mean? Anti-immigration voters will be pi**ed off by EEA. EEA voters will be pi**ed off by being fully out.
Leave aren't telling the voters, and therefore the voters cannot tell the government their wishes.
It's all highly cynical lying by leave. Not only does the current situation not split their vote, it gives them tremendous power in the chaotic arguments that follow any leave vote.
A video has appeared online apparently showing a British photojournalist who was taken hostage in Syria by so-called Islamic State in 2012. The clip, said to have been filmed in the city of Mosul, in northern Iraq, is the first footage of John Cantlie to emerge in more than a year.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
It's perhaps best not to go around this cycle again, but in my view you're very wrong. Leave are not giving the public the information they need to make a considered choice. That is their responsibility, and one they have not chosen to fix.
If you are campaigning, you should know what you're campaigning for.
Yes, they're campaigning to Leave. What happens next is up to the government.
What does 'leave' mean?
It means Leave. Leave the EU. What happens next is up to the government.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
It's perhaps best not to go around this cycle again, but in my view you're very wrong. Leave are not giving the public the information they need to make a considered choice. That is their responsibility, and one they have not chosen to fix.
If you are campaigning, you should know what you're campaigning for.
Yes, they're campaigning to Leave. What happens next is up to the government.
What does 'leave' mean? Anti-immigration voters will be pi**ed off by EEA. EEA voters will be pi**ed off by being fully out.
Leave aren't telling the voters, and therefore the voters cannot tell the government their wishes.
It's all highly cynical lying by leave. Not only does the current situation not split their vote, it gives them tremendous power in the chaotic arguments that follow any leave vote.
Leave means we leave the EU. Case closed.
EEA or not can be decided next and since Parliament has not put that on the ballot paper, Parliament will have to decide on that.
So supposing Leave said they wanted the "all the way" out, option and campaigned on it, and Leave won, and the government said okay, we are leaving, your advise has been noted, but on balance we think joining the EEA is in the national interest.
Who is misleading the public. Leave were offering a prospectus they had no means to deliver. The government never made any bones about being pro-EU and in extremist pro-EEA. So Leave would be the ones misleading the public in this case as well.
Leave are not offering a prospectus at all. They're offering contradictory promises: i.e. lies.
Leave could easily choose:
"We support EEA membership. If the government cannot manage that within (x months) after the vote then we, as a country, should be not in the EEA or EFTA."
Or:
"We do not wish to be in the EU or EEA, and want to be able to fully control immigration."
Both of those might be realisable during negotiation. If the government does not follow such a clear vote then it's their responsibility: leave have made the public's views clear.
It ain't rocket science.
They are not offering a prospectus because this is not a General Election. This is a referendum on "do we remain or leave the European Union" and they are backing "leave". That is it.
Your attempts to foist clairvoyance on the future or decisions for what happens next onto one side of that are completely constitutionally invalid. It is YOU that is lying in suggesting that.
What happens next is up to Parliament to decide. Not a nebulous concept like leave.
Leave can indicate what leave will mean, so the people can make a choice. The government then knows what the public wants. If leave cannot truthfully do that then they have no right campaigning.
The government is saying what they think remain means, whether you believe it or not. It's not their job to put a leave position to the people for the referendum.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
It's perhaps best not to go around this cycle again, but in my view you're very wrong. Leave are not giving the public the information they need to make a considered choice. That is their responsibility, and one they have not chosen to fix.
If you are campaigning, you should know what you're campaigning for.
Yes, they're campaigning to Leave. What happens next is up to the government.
What does 'leave' mean? Anti-immigration voters will be pi**ed off by EEA. EEA voters will be pi**ed off by being fully out.
Leave aren't telling the voters, and therefore the voters cannot tell the government their wishes.
It's all highly cynical lying by leave. Not only does the current situation not split their vote, it gives them tremendous power in the chaotic arguments that follow any leave vote.
Leave means we leave the EU. Case closed.
EEA or not can be decided next and since Parliament has not put that on the ballot paper, Parliament will have to decide on that.
Since, in the event of a Leave vote, the government surely favours an EEA type relationship they should have either put a second question on the same ballot paper ("in the event of a Leave win do you support HMG pursuing membership of the EEA") or made clear that it would seek consent for EEA at a later date.
They didn't, of course, because that would increase the chance of a Leave win.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
It's perhaps best not to go around this cycle again, but in my view you're very wrong. Leave are not giving the public the information they need to make a considered choice. That is their responsibility, and one they have not chosen to fix.
If you are campaigning, you should know what you're campaigning for.
Yes, they're campaigning to Leave. What happens next is up to the government.
What does 'leave' mean? Anti-immigration voters will be pi**ed off by EEA. EEA voters will be pi**ed off by being fully out.
Leave aren't telling the voters, and therefore the voters cannot tell the government their wishes.
It's all highly cynical lying by leave. Not only does the current situation not split their vote, it gives them tremendous power in the chaotic arguments that follow any leave vote.
Leave means we leave the EU. Case closed.
EEA or not can be decided next and since Parliament has not put that on the ballot paper, Parliament will have to decide on that.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
So supposing Leave said they wanted the "all the way" out, option and campaigned on it, and Leave won, and the government said okay, we are leaving, your advise has been noted, but on balance we think joining the EEA is in the national interest.
Who is misleading the public. Leave were offering a prospectus they had no means to deliver. The government never made any bones about being pro-EU and in extremist pro-EEA. So Leave would be the ones misleading the public in this case as well.
Leave are not offering a prospectus at all. They're offering contradictory promises: i.e. lies.
Leave could easily choose:
"We support EEA membership. If the government cannot manage that within (x months) after the vote then we, as a country, should be not in the EEA or EFTA."
Or:
"We do not wish to be in the EU or EEA, and want to be able to fully control immigration."
Both of those might be realisable during negotiation. If the government does not follow such a clear vote then it's their responsibility: leave have made the public's views clear.
It ain't rocket science.
They are not offering a prospectus because this is not a General Election. This is a referendum on "do we remain or leave the European Union" and they are backing "leave". That is it.
Your attempts to foist clairvoyance on the future or decisions for what happens next onto one side of that are completely constitutionally invalid. It is YOU that is lying in suggesting that.
What happens next is up to Parliament to decide. Not a nebulous concept like leave.
Leave can indicate what leave will mean
They can, but that would be misleading as they have absolutely no control over what leave will mean.
So supposing Leave said they wanted the "all the way" out, option and campaigned on it, and Leave won, and the government said okay, we are leaving, your advise has been noted, but on balance we think joining the EEA is in the national interest.
Who is misleading the public. Leave were offering a prospectus they had no means to deliver. The government never made any bones about being pro-EU and in extremist pro-EEA. So Leave would be the ones misleading the public in this case as well.
Leave are not offering a prospectus at all. They're offering contradictory promises: i.e. lies.
Leave could easily choose:
"We support EEA membership. If the government cannot manage that within (x months) after the vote then we, as a country, should be not in the EEA or EFTA."
Or:
"We do not wish to be in the EU or EEA, and want to be able to fully control immigration."
Both of those might be realisable during negotiation. If the government does not follow such a clear vote then it's their responsibility: leave have made the public's views clear.
It ain't rocket science.
They are not offering a prospectus because this is not a General Election. This is a referendum on "do we remain or leave the European Union" and they are backing "leave". That is it.
Your attempts to foist clairvoyance on the future or decisions for what happens next onto one side of that are completely constitutionally invalid. It is YOU that is lying in suggesting that.
What happens next is up to Parliament to decide. Not a nebulous concept like leave.
Leave can indicate what leave will mean, so the people can make a choice. The government then knows what the public wants. If leave cannot truthfully do that then they have no right campaigning.
The government is saying what they think remain means, whether you believe it or not. It's not their job to put a leave position to the people for the referendum.
And no, I'm not lying.
Who is this mythical leave to whom you refer? I know of no person called leave.
Leave is a concept, it is a sum of individuals and as such it has a sum of views, including all of those to whom the option of "Leave the EU" is the answer to the referendum question is asking.
Parliament phrased the referendum question, Parliament chose not to ask about the EEA, Parliament is responsible for that and Parliament is responsible for what happens next.
One side in this debate has no legal, constitutional or democratic right to usurp Parliament.
You keep posting repeatedly that LEAVE should state whether we will be in the EEA or EFTA or something else after a LEAVE vote. But the whole point of a LEAVE vote is it then frees up the Govt of the day to decide what group it joins or leaves or does trade with etc etc. Then if we the voters do not like their choice or the consequences of their choice we just vote the bar stewards out at the next GE.
Joining EEA may be best for now or EFTA in 2020 or something else in 2024.
Has REMAIN explained to us what all the major impacts are going to be by REMAINING in the EU for the next 10 years? No. Can they spell that out in one comprehensive document that Greens/Cons/Lab/SNP can all agree to? Such as social legislation, HRA etc etc No, becuase each party has its own perspective of wht it would agree to if in the EU. Is it reasonable to ask for it? On your criteria it is, but you only moan about LEAVE....
if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
...or can ignore it entirely and do what they want.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
Since, in the event of a Leave vote, the government surely favours an EEA type vote they should have either put a second question on the same ballot paper ("in the event of a Leave win do you support HMG pursuing membership of the EEA") or made clear that it woudl seek consent for EEA at a later date.
They didn't, of course, because that would increase the chance of a Leave win.
What was the EC's role in this? It wasn't solely up to the government, was it?
And did anyone from leave ask for multiple options?
I'm also unsure that the multiple options would have increased the chance of a leave win - there's no 'of course' about it. True, some now-remainers might have voted for the EEA. But the Leave vote itself would have split.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting e.......
It's perhaps best not to go around this cycle again, but in my view you're very wrong. Leave are not giving the public the information they need to make a considered choice. That is their responsibility, and one they have not chosen to fix.
If you are campaigning, you should know what you're campaigning for.
Yes, they're campaigning to Leave. What happens next is up to the government.
What does 'leave' mean? Anti-immigration voters will be pi**ed off by EEA. EEA voters will be pi**ed off by being fully out.
Leave aren't telling the voters, and therefore the voters cannot tell the government their wishes.
It's all highly cynical lying by leave. Not only does the current situation not split their vote, it gives them tremendous power in the chaotic arguments that follow any leave vote.
Leave means we leave the EU. Case closed.
EEA or not can be decided next and since Parliament has not put that on the ballot paper, Parliament will have to decide on that.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Leave/s are saying that we have the right to control immigration. Whether it is exercised or not is for the ruling Govt to decide.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
It's perhaps best not to go around this cycle again, but in my view you're very wrong. Leave are not giving the public the information they need to make a considered choice. That is their responsibility, and one they have not chosen to fix.
If you are campaigning, you should know what you're campaigning for.
Yes, they're campaigning to Leave. What happens next is up to the government.
What does 'leave' mean?
It means Leave. Leave the EU. What happens next is up to the government.
Correct. It is called parliamentary democracy. Something that used to govern all our laws.
Since, in the event of a Leave vote, the government surely favours an EEA type vote they should have either put a second question on the same ballot paper ("in the event of a Leave win do you support HMG pursuing membership of the EEA") or made clear that it woudl seek consent for EEA at a later date.
They didn't, of course, because that would increase the chance of a Leave win.
What was the EC's role in this? It wasn't solely up to the government, was it?
And did anyone from leave ask for multiple options?
I'm also unsure that the multiple options would have increased the chance of a leave win - there's no 'of course' about it. True, some now-remainers might have voted for the EEA. But the Leave vote itself would have split.
Which is why they're not giving a position now.
The EC's role was to help ensure the referendum Parliament set was democratically fair. The EC determined that it was if we used this question and these answers.
The EC played no role in determining what happens next afterwards. Neither side has any role to play in that. The only organisation which has the constitutional right to determine what happens next is Parliament and Parliament has not delegated its responsibility to either side in this referendum.
You are proposing that rather than debate the referendum question Parliament asks one side should instead debate a question Parliament hasn't asked and usurp Parliament instead. If you want a side to answer should we join the EEA or not then Parliament should ask that question in a referendum, but it hasn't done so and therefore Parliament must answer that.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
Since, in the event of a Leave vote, the government surely favours an EEA type vote they should have either put a second question on the same ballot paper ("in the event of a Leave win do you support HMG pursuing membership of the EEA") or made clear that it woudl seek consent for EEA at a later date.
They didn't, of course, because that would increase the chance of a Leave win.
What was the EC's role in this? It wasn't solely up to the government, was it?
And did anyone from leave ask for multiple options?
I'm also unsure that the multiple options would have increased the chance of a leave win - there's no 'of course' about it. True, some now-remainers might have voted for the EEA. But the Leave vote itself would have split.
I'm suggesting that there could have been two questions: Leave/Remain, followed by "if Leave, then EEA/not". That would have increased the Leave % as people whose order of preference is EEA/EU/neither (or neither/EU/EEA, though there are probably few of these) could safely vote Leave whereas now they might be less certain.
I haven't mentioned the Electoral Commission (I presume that's what EC means, not European Comission...) but it couldn't have changed the basic format of the referendum, merely suggest tweaks to the exact wording.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above.
The wriggling of hardcore leavers on here over this simple issue would be funny if it was not so serious.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above.
If they were, it would be, but they aren't. The Leave campaign/s has/have precisely no control on what happens next as they will not form a government. Why won't you accept this basic fact?
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above.
The wriggling of hardcore leavers on here over this simple issue would be funny if it was not so serious.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above.
If they were, it would be, but they aren't. The Leave campaign/s has/have precisely no control on what happens next as they will not form a government. Why won't you accept this basic fact?
I do accept it, but they can give a better indication of what leave means. After all, they're campaigning for it so they must have an idea. Then when the public votes for it, the government knows too.
But they don't, because they're afraid they'll lose. That's as deeply cynical as anything remain is doing.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above.
The wriggling of hardcore leavers on here over this simple issue would be funny if it was not so serious.
Anyway, my child's woken up, so duties await.
There are no lies, any more than there is this mythical person to whom you call leave yet refuse to name who he or she is.
If Parliament had asked about the EEA then the sides of this debate could answer it in the referendum. Parliament chose not to, take your concerns up with Parliament not anyone in this debate.
Since this is not a General Election, everyone in this debate can only answer the question Parliament has actually asked. The rest is up to Parliament to decide.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above.
If they were, it would be, but they aren't. The Leave campaign/s has/have precisely no control on what happens next as they will not form a government. Why won't you accept this basic fact?
I do accept it, but they can give a better indication of what leave means.
No they can't, at least not whilst being honest. They could say "this is our preferred option" but they have absolutely no way of making it happen, so implying what they want to happen would happen would be dishonest.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above.
The wriggling of hardcore leavers on here over this simple issue would be funny if it was not so serious.
Anyway, my child's woken up, so duties await.
There are no lies, any more than there is this mythical person to whom you call leave yet refuse to name who he or she is.
If Parliament had asked about the EEA then the sides of this debate could answer it in the referendum. Parliament chose not to, take your concerns up with Parliament not anyone in this debate.
Since this is not a General Election, everyone in this debate can only answer the question Parliament has actually asked. The rest is up to Parliament to decide.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above.
If they were, it would be, but they aren't. The Leave campaign/s has/have precisely no control on what happens next as they will not form a government. Why won't you accept this basic fact?
I do accept it, but they can give a better indication of what leave means. After all, they're campaigning for it so they must have an idea. Then when the public votes for it, the government knows too.
But they don't, because they're afraid they'll lose. That's as deeply cynical as anything remain is doing.
I, George Galloway, Douglas Carswell, Kelvin Hopkins, Arlene Foster, Chris Grayling, Nigel Farage all have somewhat different reasons for favouring Leave. It doesn't mean any of us are lying. We have a binary choice, not a multiple choice.
Ah - so you are relying on the 2013 proposals! That would effectively restore the Ceredigion and Pembroke North seat that existed from 1983 until 1997 which was a LibDem stronghold! Regarding your point that a constituency stretching from Eglwyswrw to Milford Haven being too big, may I remind you that until 1983 the Pembrokeshire seat went from Eglwyswrw to beyond Pembroke Dock!
I got the village wrong. I have changed it. (I actually meant Eglwyswrw to Eglwysfach, but I realised nobody would know where they were apart from us so I kept Milford Haven instead.)
I think you will find Cynog Dafis won the Cardigan PN constituency in 1992. He was not a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrat position in Pembrokeshire has withered away completely. I say again, this would be a safe Conservative seat with Plaid, the LDs and Labour fighting for second.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above.
If they were, it would be, but they aren't. The Leave campaign/s has/have precisely no control on what happens next as they will not form a government. Why won't you accept this basic fact?
I do accept it, but they can give a better indication of what leave means. After all, they're campaigning for it so they must have an idea. Then when the public votes for it, the government knows too.
But they don't, because they're afraid they'll lose. That's as deeply cynical as anything remain is doing.
People who back specific proposals are giving indications to what their preferred option means. That's all that can be done with the question Parliament has actually asked being the one on the ballot paper.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above.
The wriggling of hardcore leavers on here over this simple issue would be funny if it was not so serious.
Anyway, my child's woken up, so duties await.
Saved by the bawl?
Since I'm arguing with hardcore leavers, I'm onto a losing thing. I'm still surprised they don't think leave is lying to the public by promising them everything and anything.
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above. The wriggling of hardcore leavers on here over this simple issue would be funny if it was not so serious. ....
But if Leave are telling the public that leave will control immigration, or enter the EEA, then they are cynically lying. If they make a decision then the government will know what the public have voted for, and can negotiate accordingly.
Name one person who has said we should leave the EU, join the EEA and have full control over immigration. If such a person exists then that individual is lying.
That's not what I'm saying, as should be obvious.
No you're saying one side should unilaterally and unanimously make up answers to questions Parliament hasn't asked. That's both obvious and ludicrous.
No, it is not. The ludicrous situation is leave lying to voters, for the reasons given above.
The wriggling of hardcore leavers on here over this simple issue would be funny if it was not so serious.
Anyway, my child's woken up, so duties await.
Saved by the bawl?
Since I'm arguing with hardcore leavers, I'm onto a losing thing. I'm still surprised they don't think leave is lying to the public by promising them everything and anything.
I'm not a "hardcore leaver", I started the campaign backing Remain and still haven't made my mind up yet 100%.
It's remarkable that you still think "leave is lying" while refusing to say who this person called leave is. Leave is an answer to the question Parliament has asked, it is not a person. By definition neither leave nor remain can lie as it is impossible for an answer to lie, it is only possible for people to lie.
Voting Leave means we leave the EU and Parliament is sovereign to rule on what happens next, if you want the referendum to settle that then get Parliament to ask the question.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
That problem could surely be solved with a two part question:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Union?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If the vote is in favour leaving the EU, do prefer that Britain remains part of the European Economic Area (EEA), or that it has a looser arrangement?
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
That problem could surely be solved with a two part question:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Union?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If the vote is in favour leaving the EU, do prefer that Britain remains part of the European Economic Area (EEA), or that it has a looser arrangement?
[ ] EEA [ ] Looser Arrangement"
Yes, I suggested that. IIRC you're one of the people who prefers EEA to EU but EU to Looser Arrangement?
I don't think there's much evidence the Blairite market fundamentalist wing of the PLP are closer to Labour voters than the moderate social democrats like Corbyn.
Presumably, your definition of 'moderate social democrat' is when compared to Stalin?
Surely everyone is entitled to their own definition of moderate?
I'm long enough in the tooth to spot when it is used by a partisan to further his or her own agenda.
Ah - so you are relying on the 2013 proposals! That would effectively restore the Ceredigion and Pembroke North seat that existed from 1983 until 1997 which was a LibDem stronghold! Regarding your point that a constituency stretching from Eglwyswrw to Milford Haven being too big, may I remind you that until 1983 the Pembrokeshire seat went from Eglwyswrw to beyond Pembroke Dock!
I got the village wrong. I have changed it. (I actually meant Eglwyswrw to Eglwysfach, but I realised nobody would know where they were apart from us so I kept Milford Haven instead.)
I think you will find Cynog Dafis won the Cardigan PN constituency in 1992. He was not a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrat position in Pembrokeshire has withered away completely. I say again, this would be a safe Conservative seat with Plaid, the LDs and Labour fighting for second.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
The breakdown of the yougov figures show 8% of 2015 Tory voters would now vote UKIP but only 3% have switched to Labour, canceled out by the 3% of Labour voters in 2015 who would now vote Tory. 21% of 2015 LD voters by contrast now back Labour. So since the election there has been no net movement between the Tories and Labour but there has been significant movement from the Tories to UKIP and some movement from the LDs to Labour
Why does this analysis give me a sense of Deja Vu?
Our Red Liberal crutch failed last time, and we ended up on our @rses.
Indeed but there has been further net shift from Tory to UKIP since the election which will likely increase post the referendum, the most likely result would probably be a hung parliament with the Tories likely largest party
I have £7.28 on UKIP most seats 500/1 at Paddy Power that I would be open to offers to if circumstances change.
Already down to 250/1
EDIT: I see they've priced the SNP most seats also at 250/1.
I would expect UKIP to see more of a LDs 2005, at least in votes, than an SNP 2015 surge but you never know
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
That problem could surely be solved with a two part question:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Union?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If the vote is in favour leaving the EU, do prefer that Britain remains part of the European Economic Area (EEA), or that it has a looser arrangement?
[ ] EEA [ ] Looser Arrangement"
Yes, I suggested that. IIRC you're one of the people who prefers EEA to EU but EU to Looser Arrangement?
It would have very serious consequences for my business if we were to leave the EEA, so I would have to think very carefully if it was a choice between EU and completely out.
The breakdown of the yougov figures show 8% of 2015 Tory voters would now vote UKIP but only 3% have switched to Labour, canceled out by the 3% of Labour voters in 2015 who would now vote Tory. 21% of 2015 LD voters by contrast now back Labour. So since the election there has been no net movement between the Tories and Labour but there has been significant movement from the Tories to UKIP and some movement from the LDs to Labour
Why does this analysis give me a sense of Deja Vu?
Our Red Liberal crutch failed last time, and we ended up on our @rses.
Indeed but there has been further net shift from Tory to UKIP since the election which will likely increase post the referendum, the most likely result would probably be a hung parliament with the Tories likely largest party
Unlikely.
Carswell was a Tory. The only MPs UKIP have ever had were once Tories. UKIP leaning Voters in marginals know they'd rather have a Tory government than a Labour one. Even when it is led by the less than ideal Cameron.
One of the many reasons why opinion polls are increasingly uninteresting. They don't reflect the reality - they're the Facebook petition of modern politics.
Incidentally, which moron invented the online parliamentary petition. I am sick of them.l and the keyboard warriors that sign them.
That is precisely the point in seats like Thanet and Claxton and Thurroch the race is now Tory v UKIP not Tory v Labour and those type of seats will only increase post EU ref with a few Labour v UKIP like Grimsby
Ah - so you are relying on the 2013 proposals! That would effectively restore the Ceredigion and Pembroke North seat that existed from 1983 until 1997 which was a LibDem stronghold! Regarding your point that a constituency stretching from Eglwyswrw to Milford Haven being too big, may I remind you that until 1983 the Pembrokeshire seat went from Eglwyswrw to beyond Pembroke Dock!
I got the village wrong. I have changed it. (I actually meant Eglwyswrw to Eglwysfach, but I realised nobody would know where they were apart from us so I kept Milford Haven instead.)
I think you will find Cynog Dafis won the Cardigan PN constituency in 1992. He was not a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrat position in Pembrokeshire has withered away completely. I say again, this would be a safe Conservative seat with Plaid, the LDs and Labour fighting for second.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
Yes the problem is that if say you start off in Cardiff/Glamorgan and have 5 sensible constituencies they are all at the bottom of the Plus/Minus 5% limit and the remaining 24 Welsh constituencies have to meet a tighter limit than plus//minus 5% .
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
That problem could surely be solved with a two part question:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Union?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If the vote is in favour leaving the EU, do prefer that Britain remains part of the European Economic Area (EEA), or that it has a looser arrangement?
[ ] EEA [ ] Looser Arrangement"
Yes, I suggested that. IIRC you're one of the people who prefers EEA to EU but EU to Looser Arrangement?
It would have very serious consequences for my business if we were to leave the EEA, so I would have to think very carefully if it was a choice between EU and completely out.
I, on the other hand, consider any of the available relationships including completely out under WTO rules to be preferable to continued EU membership.
Ah - so you are relying on the 2013 proposals! That would effectively restore the Ceredigion and Pembroke North seat that existed from 1983 until 1997 which was a LibDem stronghold! Regarding your point that a constituency stretching from Eglwyswrw to Milford Haven being too big, may I remind you that until 1983 the Pembrokeshire seat went from Eglwyswrw to beyond Pembroke Dock!
I got the village wrong. I have changed it. (I actually meant Eglwyswrw to Eglwysfach, but I realised nobody would know where they were apart from us so I kept Milford Haven instead.)
I think you will find Cynog Dafis won the Cardigan PN constituency in 1992. He was not a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrat position in Pembrokeshire has withered away completely. I say again, this would be a safe Conservative seat with Plaid, the LDs and Labour fighting for second.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
Yes the problem is that if say you start off in Cardiff/Glamorgan and have 5 sensible constituencies they are all at the bottom of the Plus/Minus 5% limit and the remaining 24 Welsh constituencies have to meet a tighter limit than plus//minus 5% .
They'll all be much closer than the current massively unbalanced status quo though.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
That problem could surely be solved with a two part question:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Union?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If the vote is in favour leaving the EU, do prefer that Britain remains part of the European Economic Area (EEA), or that it has a looser arrangement?
[ ] EEA [ ] Looser Arrangement"
Yes, I suggested that. IIRC you're one of the people who prefers EEA to EU but EU to Looser Arrangement?
It would have very serious consequences for my business if we were to leave the EEA, so I would have to think very carefully if it was a choice between EU and completely out.
I, on the other hand, consider any of the available relationships including completely out under WTO rules to be preferable to continued EU membership.
If Leave wins the Tories have a hell of a lot of arguing to do over the Brexit deal.
Great lets get on with it. That's the whole point of being in government, to get to do that which needs doing.
The government cannot publicly do that whilst supporting remain.
It's up to leave to come up with proposals for the people, and which will bind the government. Sadly they will not do so. It's quite simply because doing so might split leave between the anti-immigration and EEA groupings.
Because of this, the public have little idea what Leave will mean.
It's highly cynical of leave.
No its not cynical it is the inevitable nature of Leave at present being defined merely as opposition to the status quo, not an alternative. Thus you get all opponents of the status quo as Leave even if they'd oppose each other.
We could if you wanted to have positive cases fighting each other have this fought out by Alternative Vote with three options: Remain in EU, Leave to the EEA, Leave altogether. However the government would most likely lose that to the EEA option so instead have made this a simple In or Out question.
It is not Leave's fault that neither of their options are on the ballot so they are united together as simply Leave. There is no dishonesty there.
That problem could surely be solved with a two part question:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Union?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If the vote is in favour leaving the EU, do prefer that Britain remains part of the European Economic Area (EEA), or that it has a looser arrangement?
[ ] EEA [ ] Looser Arrangement"
Yes, I suggested that. IIRC you're one of the people who prefers EEA to EU but EU to Looser Arrangement?
Something like the door-in-the-face fallacy, making the middle of three options seem the most reasonable.
Ah - so you are relying on the 2013 proposals! That would effectively restore the Ceredigion and Pembroke North seat that existed from 1983 until 1997 which was a LibDem stronghold! Regarding your point that a constituency stretching from Eglwyswrw to Milford Haven being too big, may I remind you that until 1983 the Pembrokeshire seat went from Eglwyswrw to beyond Pembroke Dock!
I got the village wrong. I have changed it. (I actually meant Eglwyswrw to Eglwysfach, but I realised nobody would know where they were apart from us so I kept Milford Haven instead.)
I think you will find Cynog Dafis won the Cardigan PN constituency in 1992. He was not a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrat position in Pembrokeshire has withered away completely. I say again, this would be a safe Conservative seat with Plaid, the LDs and Labour fighting for second.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
Yes the problem is that if say you start off in Cardiff/Glamorgan and have 5 sensible constituencies they are all at the bottom of the Plus/Minus 5% limit and the remaining 24 Welsh constituencies have to meet a tighter limit than plus//minus 5% .
They'll all be much closer than the current massively unbalanced status quo though.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Indeed but on the question of near identical size they be much closer than they are currently.
On the question of commonality, politicians will just have to get used to representing different areas. It will still be much more common than under any other form of voting system with regional voting areas.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
Yes the problem is that if say you start off in Cardiff/Glamorgan and have 5 sensible constituencies they are all at the bottom of the Plus/Minus 5% limit and the remaining 24 Welsh constituencies have to meet a tighter limit than plus//minus 5% .
They'll all be much closer than the current massively unbalanced status quo though.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Yes we can have 600 constituencies numbered 1-600 . Every elector is randomly put into 1 wherever they live . 600 equal sized constituencies and most GEs would have one party winning all 600 of them with FPTP .
Yes, I suggested that. IIRC you're one of the people who prefers EEA to EU but EU to Looser Arrangement?
Something like the door-in-the-face fallacy, making the middle of three options seem the most reasonable.
There are three arguments that - to me - make EFTA/EEA look by far the most attractive option:
1. It recovers the vast bulk of sovereignty, removes ECJ oversight, and costs less. 2. It would enable various measures that would reduce immigration, while still maintaining freedom for British people to work across the EEA and for British employers to employe from the across the EEA. 3. Those countries that are in the EEA - like Norway - are - according to polls - overwhelmingly in favour of keeping their current status.
And it does all this while allowing businesses like mine - that generate a very substantial portion of their revenues from the EU, under the single European Financial passport - to continue as they do now.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
Yes the problem is that if say you start off in Cardiff/Glamorgan and have 5 sensible constituencies they are all at the bottom of the Plus/Minus 5% limit and the remaining 24 Welsh constituencies have to meet a tighter limit than plus//minus 5% .
They'll all be much closer than the current massively unbalanced status quo though.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Yes we can have 600 constituencies numbered 1-600 . Every elector is randomly put into 1 wherever they live . 600 equal sized constituencies and most GEs would have one party winning all 600 of them with FPTP .
No they would not! Standard deviation would prevent that.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
Yes the problem is that if say you start off in Cardiff/Glamorgan and have 5 sensible constituencies they are all at the bottom of the Plus/Minus 5% limit and the remaining 24 Welsh constituencies have to meet a tighter limit than plus//minus 5% .
They'll all be much closer than the current massively unbalanced status quo though.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Yes we can have 600 constituencies numbered 1-600 . Every elector is randomly put into 1 wherever they live . 600 equal sized constituencies and most GEs would have one party winning all 600 of them with FPTP .
No they would not! Standard deviation would prevent that.
A party with a lead of around 6% would win all 600 seats
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
Yes the problem is that if say you start off in Cardiff/Glamorgan and have 5 sensible constituencies they are all at the bottom of the Plus/Minus 5% limit and the remaining 24 Welsh constituencies have to meet a tighter limit than plus//minus 5% .
They'll all be much closer than the current massively unbalanced status quo though.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Yes we can have 600 constituencies numbered 1-600 . Every elector is randomly put into 1 wherever they live . 600 equal sized constituencies and most GEs would have one party winning all 600 of them with FPTP .
No they would not! Standard deviation would prevent that.
A party with a lead of around 6% would win all 600 seats
I just played in Excel, and I think it's even narrower than that. 4 or 5% assuming each is random would be enough to get 600 seats in the majority of cases. And third parties would literally get no votes seats.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Indeed but on the question of near identical size they be much closer than they are currently.
On the question of commonality, politicians will just have to get used to representing different areas. It will still be much more common than under any other form of voting system with regional voting areas.
I agree completely that it is much better that sizes are more similar. The current range is something close to +/- 25%, and I just wonder whether 7.5% might have allowed a little more flexibility. After all, we don't want a situation where constituencies look like US congressional districts.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Indeed but on the question of near identical size they be much closer than they are currently.
On the question of commonality, politicians will just have to get used to representing different areas. It will still be much more common than under any other form of voting system with regional voting areas.
I agree completely that it is much better that sizes are more similar. The current range is something close to +/- 25%, and I just wonder whether 7.5% might have allowed a little more flexibility. After all, we don't want a situation where constituencies look like US congressional districts.
Yes plus/minus 7.5% makes things much more flexible and easier .
As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
Yes the problem is that if say you start off in Cardiff/Glamorgan and have 5 sensible constituencies they are all at the bottom of the Plus/Minus 5% limit and the remaining 24 Welsh constituencies have to meet a tighter limit than plus//minus 5% .
They'll all be much closer than the current massively unbalanced status quo though.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Yes we can have 600 constituencies numbered 1-600 . Every elector is randomly put into 1 wherever they live . 600 equal sized constituencies and most GEs would have one party winning all 600 of them with FPTP .
No they would not! Standard deviation would prevent that.
A party with a lead of around 6% would win all 600 seats
I just played in Excel, and I think it's even narrower than that. 4 or 5% assuming each is random would be enough to get 600 seats in the majority of cases. And third parties would literally get no votes seats.
I think it would be more complicated. The distribution would still give some seats with mainly voters in urban areas or mainly voters in rural areas. I'm not sure that effect is priced into your conclusion.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Indeed but on the question of near identical size they be much closer than they are currently.
On the question of commonality, politicians will just have to get used to representing different areas. It will still be much more common than under any other form of voting system with regional voting areas.
I agree completely that it is much better that sizes are more similar. The current range is something close to +/- 25%, and I just wonder whether 7.5% might have allowed a little more flexibility. After all, we don't want a situation where constituencies look like US congressional districts.
Yes plus/minus 7.5% makes things much more flexible and easier .
In 2013, most of the complaining was about small parts of seats being out of place. I don't recall any seat which substantively lacked commonality, although I was not focussed on Wales.
Ah - so you are relying on the 2013 proposals! That would effectively restore the Ceredigion and Pembroke North seat that existed from 1983 until 1997 which was a LibDem stronghold! Regarding your point that a constituency stretching from Eglwyswrw to Milford Haven being too big, may I remind you that until 1983 the Pembrokeshire seat went from Eglwyswrw to beyond Pembroke Dock!
I got the village wrong. I have changed it. (I actually meant Eglwyswrw to Eglwysfach, but I realised nobody would know where they were apart from us so I kept Milford Haven instead.)
I think you will find Cynog Dafis won the Cardigan PN constituency in 1992. He was not a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrat position in Pembrokeshire has withered away completely. I say again, this would be a safe Conservative seat with Plaid, the LDs and Labour fighting for second.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
Tactical voting is dead for the moment. It would of course be unusual in that both Crabb and Mark Williams are incumbent MPs, but I don't think Williams would get any help from Labour voters. Plaid Cymru, but they're not really in play. More likely Williams would leak votes to the Conservatives to block Labour, and to Labour from those young idealists in Aberystwyth and Lampeter who see the world in terms of goodies and baddies, and are naive enough to think of Corbyn as a goodie.
That seat would be an easy Conservative win, as the one to the south should be a straightforward Labour win.
Comments
Who is misleading the public. Leave were offering a prospectus they had no means to deliver. The government never made any bones about being pro-EU and in extremist pro-EEA. So Leave would be the ones misleading the public in this case as well.
I think you will find Cynog Dafis won the Cardigan PN constituency in 1992. He was not a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrat position in Pembrokeshire has withered away completely. I say again, this would be a safe Conservative seat with Plaid, the LDs and Labour fighting for second.
If Leave came up with a considered position before the referendum, the people would have known what they were voting for. Then the government would have to take that into consideration during negotiations. If they do not, the the public will know that the government is not following their wishes.
At the moment, the people know nothing. It's up to leave to fill that vacuum.
And BTW, I'm not a remainer. I just think Leave have morally got this wrong in their understandable quest for as many votes as possible.
Labour are probably playing it right at the moment. They may need to change that soon, though.
Leave are giving the public all the information we need. We have three options, we could leave and join the EEA (AKA the Norway option), we could leave and join the EFTA (AKA the Swiss option) or we could simply leave and sign free trade agreements (AKA the Canada/Kipper/WTO take your pick option).
Which choice the nation makes would be a choice for us to make after we vote leave, nobody on the leave side has any legal or democratic right to make that choice for us. It is dishonest for you to suggest otherwise. I want the EEA option and have said so. Farage wants the leave altogether option and has said so. There is no dishonesty.
Leave would equally be morally in the wrong for offering a prospectus they had no means of delivering.
Already down to 250/1
EDIT: I see they've priced the SNP most seats also at 250/1.
Leave could easily choose:
"We support EEA membership. If the government cannot manage that within (x months) after the vote then we, as a country, should be not in the EEA or EFTA."
Or:
"We do not wish to be in the EU or EEA, and want to be able to fully control immigration."
Both of those might be realisable during negotiation. If the government does not follow such a clear vote then it's their responsibility: leave have made the public's views clear.
It ain't rocket science.
But leave's prospectus is as clear as mud.
Your attempts to foist clairvoyance on the future or decisions for what happens next onto one side of that are completely constitutionally invalid. It is YOU that is lying in suggesting that.
What happens next is up to Parliament to decide. Not a nebulous concept like leave.
Having spent his pennies on tax cuts while having to u-turn on some of the spending reductions, he can either go to the polls early as a divided infighting party, or give up his 'political' fiscal rules altogether (and therefore become Nasty Brown) or actually implement some huge cuts just before an election.
"Near Perfect" master strategist ahoy.
After this referendum Parliament continues to rule on such matters, not remain or leave.
Leave aren't telling the voters, and therefore the voters cannot tell the government their wishes.
It's all highly cynical lying by leave. Not only does the current situation not split their vote, it gives them tremendous power in the chaotic arguments that follow any leave vote.
The clip, said to have been filmed in the city of Mosul, in northern Iraq, is the first footage of John Cantlie to emerge in more than a year.
EEA or not can be decided next and since Parliament has not put that on the ballot paper, Parliament will have to decide on that.
The government is saying what they think remain means, whether you believe it or not. It's not their job to put a leave position to the people for the referendum.
And no, I'm not lying.
They didn't, of course, because that would increase the chance of a Leave win.
Leave is a concept, it is a sum of individuals and as such it has a sum of views, including all of those to whom the option of "Leave the EU" is the answer to the referendum question is asking.
Parliament phrased the referendum question, Parliament chose not to ask about the EEA, Parliament is responsible for that and Parliament is responsible for what happens next.
One side in this debate has no legal, constitutional or democratic right to usurp Parliament.
You keep posting repeatedly that LEAVE should state whether we will be in the EEA or EFTA or something else after a LEAVE vote. But the whole point of a LEAVE vote is it then frees up the Govt of the day to decide what group it joins or leaves or does trade with etc etc. Then if we the voters do not like their choice or the consequences of their choice we just vote the bar stewards out at the next GE.
Joining EEA may be best for now or EFTA in 2020 or something else in 2024.
Has REMAIN explained to us what all the major impacts are going to be by REMAINING in the EU for the next 10 years? No.
Can they spell that out in one comprehensive document that Greens/Cons/Lab/SNP can all agree to? Such as social legislation, HRA etc etc No, becuase each party has its own perspective of wht it would agree to if in the EU.
Is it reasonable to ask for it? On your criteria it is, but you only moan about LEAVE....
Which is more likely?
And did anyone from leave ask for multiple options?
I'm also unsure that the multiple options would have increased the chance of a leave win - there's no 'of course' about it. True, some now-remainers might have voted for the EEA. But the Leave vote itself would have split.
Which is why they're not giving a position now.
The EC played no role in determining what happens next afterwards. Neither side has any role to play in that. The only organisation which has the constitutional right to determine what happens next is Parliament and Parliament has not delegated its responsibility to either side in this referendum.
You are proposing that rather than debate the referendum question Parliament asks one side should instead debate a question Parliament hasn't asked and usurp Parliament instead. If you want a side to answer should we join the EEA or not then Parliament should ask that question in a referendum, but it hasn't done so and therefore Parliament must answer that.
I haven't mentioned the Electoral Commission (I presume that's what EC means, not European Comission...) but it couldn't have changed the basic format of the referendum, merely suggest tweaks to the exact wording.
The wriggling of hardcore leavers on here over this simple issue would be funny if it was not so serious.
Anyway, my child's woken up, so duties await.
Saved by the bawl?
But they don't, because they're afraid they'll lose. That's as deeply cynical as anything remain is doing.
If Parliament had asked about the EEA then the sides of this debate could answer it in the referendum. Parliament chose not to, take your concerns up with Parliament not anyone in this debate.
Since this is not a General Election, everyone in this debate can only answer the question Parliament has actually asked. The rest is up to Parliament to decide.
Since I'm arguing with hardcore leavers, I'm onto a losing thing. I'm still surprised they don't think leave is lying to the public by promising them everything and anything.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case
If we do not like that then we vote the Govt out. Is that clear?
It's remarkable that you still think "leave is lying" while refusing to say who this person called leave is. Leave is an answer to the question Parliament has asked, it is not a person. By definition neither leave nor remain can lie as it is impossible for an answer to lie, it is only possible for people to lie.
Voting Leave means we leave the EU and Parliament is sovereign to rule on what happens next, if you want the referendum to settle that then get Parliament to ask the question.
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Union?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
If the vote is in favour leaving the EU, do prefer that Britain remains part of the European Economic Area (EEA), or that it has a looser arrangement?
[ ] EEA
[ ] Looser Arrangement"
Zac even included a leaflet
I'm long enough in the tooth to spot when it is used by a partisan to further his or her own agenda.
"The Red Shoes"
On the question of commonality, politicians will just have to get used to representing different areas. It will still be much more common than under any other form of voting system with regional voting areas.
1. It recovers the vast bulk of sovereignty, removes ECJ oversight, and costs less.
2. It would enable various measures that would reduce immigration, while still maintaining freedom for British people to work across the EEA and for British employers to employe from the across the EEA.
3. Those countries that are in the EEA - like Norway - are - according to polls - overwhelmingly in favour of keeping their current status.
And it does all this while allowing businesses like mine - that generate a very substantial portion of their revenues from the EU, under the single European Financial passport - to continue as they do now.
That seat would be an easy Conservative win, as the one to the south should be a straightforward Labour win.