She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
In my opinion the choice at the referendum only offered two wrong options.
Option 1Out: has a lot of disadvantages. In the long term it could work out. As Scott is misremembering, Remain were postulating that GDP may be or 2% down in 30 years (or some such nonsense). Option 2 Stay: has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.
The choice was to vote for the least wrong option. Neither are worth an emotional attachment and the fanaticism that is displayed as both are fundamentally flawed.
Unfortunately the optimal option - a two speed Europe - is something the UK has been seeking for 20 years and simply wasn't available
That would be anything but optimal. As you yourself have pointed out, it would relegate us to the second division outside the Eurozone. We need to join the Euro and face up to the reality that our firm national interest is in being at the core of the EU. There is no alternative.
By stating there is no alternative you are empirically wrong.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
The reason we have elections is precisely to reduce the likelihood of the demos (or anyone else) making wrong decisions.
Run that by me again.
I think he means demos (plural) not demos (singular).
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
The reason we have elections is precisely to reduce the likelihood of the demos (or anyone else) making wrong decisions.
Run that by me again.
I think it is what Mrs Thatcher said about why she wasn't keen on referendums, they become an opportunity to kick an unpopular government.
I mean how many people ignored the merits of AV just to give Clegg a kicking.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
In my opinion the choice at the referendum only offered two wrong options.
Option 1Out: has a lot of disadvantages. In the long term it could work out. As Scott is misremembering, Remain were postulating that GDP may be or 2% down in 30 years (or some such nonsense). Option 2 Stay: has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.
The choice was to vote for the least wrong option. Neither are worth an emotional attachment and the fanaticism that is displayed as both are fundamentally flawed.
Unfortunately the optimal option - a two speed Europe - is something the UK has been seeking for 20 years and simply wasn't available
That would be anything but optimal. As you yourself have pointed out, it would relegate us to the second division outside the Eurozone. We need to join the Euro and face up to the reality that our firm national interest is in being at the core of the EU. There is no alternative.
You are in for a shock my friend when it finally dawns on you that there is indeed a very good alternative and we have already taken it.
I really hope you are right, Richard, though I have yet to see any reason for thinking you are.
Where we definitely agree is that train has certainly left the station, and we are on it.
This is astonishing. By stripping away normal employment rights from some of the lowest paid workers in the economy, Deliveroo recon they've managed to cut £1 off the cost of every delivery.
Parcel delivery firm Hermes, which was found in a Guardian investigation to be paying some of its couriers below the “national living wage”, said it would cost £58.8m annually to employ its 15,000 staff, including £32m in national insurance contributions.
Forget the low pay argument, this is rancid stuff - We'd love to skip national insurance at my business too. Our parent co could take it in dividend, it could be distributed as annual staff profit share, kept in the reserves or given as a pay rise to the employees.
These "gig" companies should pay their dues.
You can see why some people voted for Corbyn.
Too much of big business has disgraced itself.
That is exactly why lots of people voted for Corbyn.
Not because of an ideological commitment to socialism, but because so much of the corporate sector has behaved appallingly.
And with no fear of retribution or willingness to take responsibility.
The way the likes of Blair and Osborne have received huge amounts from High Finance immediately on leaving government doesn't go down well either.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
In my opinion the choice at the referendum only offered two wrong options.
Option 1Out: has a lot of disadvantages. In the long term it could work out. As Scott is misremembering, Remain were postulating that GDP may be or 2% down in 30 years (or some such nonsense). Option 2 Stay: has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.
The choice was to vote for the least wrong option. Neither are worth an emotional attachment and the fanaticism that is displayed as both are fundamentally flawed.
Unfortunately the optimal option - a two speed Europe - is something the UK has been seeking for 20 years and simply wasn't available
That would be anything but optimal. As you yourself have pointed out, it would relegate us to the second division outside the Eurozone. We need to join the Euro and face up to the reality that our firm national interest is in being at the core of the EU. There is no alternative.
Give it a rest. Do you just copy and paste the same euro line every night?
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
The reason we have elections is precisely to reduce the likelihood of the demos (or anyone else) making wrong decisions.
Run that by me again.
I think it is what Mrs Thatcher said about why she wasn't keen on referendums, they become an opportunity to kick an unpopular government.
I mean how many people ignored the merits of AV just to give Clegg a kicking.
But, there aren't any merits to AV.
Scores 5 in scrabble. That is an advantage, if it is permissible.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Under PR in 2015 UKIP would have had 70 odd MPs, now that would have set the cat among the pigeons.
That would have been a lot healthier though because it would have given representation to the UKIP agenda, which a lot of people liked. It would also have given the electorate a chance to see just how awful UKIP were once they actually got into Parliament. That too would have been very healthy.
It would have met with my approval, please consider there wouldn't have been a GE in 2017 and those kippers would still be there. And you'd be flinging your arms around and calling for FPTP.
It seems you like democracy on your terms.
No, I wouldn't. And no, I don't.
I'm sure you'd agree that with dozens of UKIP MPs the Brexit process would be much further down the line.
No idea. Wouldn't it depend on how good those MPs turned out to be?
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
That's my plan for when I become the country's first directly elected Dictator.
My first term would be for 12 to 15 years, and elections every 10 years thereafter.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
No we wouldn't. That would make it worse and be even less Democratic. Giving more power to the parties is simply reinforcing everything that is wrong with our Parliamentary system. MPs are supposed to represent their constituents first and last. They do not because the party has too much control over them.
That is why referendums are necessary so the people actually get a voice against the elite.
By the way, I assume you will tell Switzerland their system of democracy is a disaster. Be sure to point out why they are so much worse off than we are since apparently you think that to be the case.
I meant in the UK. The UK is not Switzerland. Direct democracy works quite well there because it's a small country similar in scale to a US state. And of course you need a government that's comfortable with implementing laws that it disagees with. We're having a little experiment with this in the UK at the moment and we can all see how successful that's turning out. Direct democracy isn't going to happen here, except perhaps in an advisory form.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Yes.
IMO, under 3+ member STV, UKIP(/BNP?) would have emerged as an electoral force soon after 2008 and pushed Lab & Con to take their supporters' grievances seriously.
Who knows how the GE/coalitions would have played out, but I think it's pretty unlikely we'd have ended up with a ridiculous all-or nothing IN/OUT referendum, framed as a proxy anti-austerity/anti-status quo vote.
The current mess could have been avoided if Farage & co had been in parliament for a few years, putting the soft/hard leave case forward & having it challenged (& IMO discredited) from different angles by lab/con/ld/BNP(?)
If leavers had won the country over to their cause, it would have at least been a responsible, negotiated brexit that had been a long time coming.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
By the way, democracy/populism is clearly another of those irregular verbs so beloved by Yes Prime Minister.
Democracy: MPs voting for popular policies I agree with Populism: MPs voting for popular policies I don't agree with.
I support democracy.
You support populism.
They are being charged with acts against the constitution...
Populism is doing what the majority of the voters want?
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to write?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
No we wouldn't. That would make it worse and be even less Democratic. Giving more power to the parties is simply reinforcing everything that is wrong with our Parliamentary system. MPs are supposed to represent their constituents first and last. They do not because the party has too much control over them.
That is why referendums are necessary so the people actually get a voice against the elite.
By the way, I assume you will tell Switzerland their system of democracy is a disaster. Be sure to point out why they are so much worse off than we are since apparently you think that to be the case.
I meant in the UK. The UK is not Switzerland. Direct democracy works quite well there because it's a small country similar in scale to a US state. And of course you need a government that's comfortable with implementing laws that it disagees with. We're having a little experiment with this in the UK at the moment and we can all see how successful that's turning out. Direct democracy isn't going to happen here, except perhaps in an advisory form.
The coalition managed implementing laws parts of the coalition disagreed with well.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Under PR in 2015 UKIP would have had 70 odd MPs, now that would have set the cat among the pigeons.
That would have been a lot healthier though because it would have given representation to the UKIP agenda, which a lot of people liked. It would also have given the electorate a chance to see just how awful UKIP were once they actually got into Parliament. That too would have been very healthy.
It would have met with my approval, please consider there wouldn't have been a GE in 2017 and those kippers would still be there. And you'd be flinging your arms around and calling for FPTP.
It seems you like democracy on your terms.
No, I wouldn't. And no, I don't.
I'm sure you'd agree that with dozens of UKIP MPs the Brexit process would be much further down the line.
No idea. Wouldn't it depend on how good those MPs turned out to be?
They'd get loads of air time at PMQs and in the commons in general, they'd hammer May relentlessly.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
That's my plan for when I become the country's first directly elected Dictator.
My first term would be for 12 to 15 years, and elections every 10 years thereafter.
Who would be your Master of Horse ?
Mr Meeks or Mr Price, both of these parish would be contenders.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
In my opinion the choice at the referendum only offered two wrong options.
Option 1Out: has a lot of disadvantages. In the long term it could work out. As Scott is misremembering, Remain were postulating that GDP may be or 2% down in 30 years (or some such nonsense). Option 2 Stay: has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.
The choice was to vote for the least wrong option. Neither are worth an emotional attachment and the fanaticism that is displayed as both are fundamentally flawed.
Unfortunately the optimal option - a two speed Europe - is something the UK has been seeking for 20 years and simply wasn't available
Which rather perversely may well be the legacy the UK leaves the EU for a selection recalcitrant states, as it will be the only way to prevent further departures.
I was with some Swedes earlier this week and they were bemoaning the loss of an ally/someone to take the flak
I'll be in Beijing next week so we shall see what they have to say.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
By the way, democracy/populism is clearly another of those irregular verbs so beloved by Yes Prime Minister.
Democracy: MPs voting for popular policies I agree with Populism: MPs voting for popular policies I don't agree with.
I support democracy.
You support populism.
They are being charged with acts against the constitution...
Populism is doing what the majority of the voters want?
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
The reason we have elections is precisely to reduce the likelihood of the demos (or anyone else) making wrong decisions.
Run that by me again.
I think it is what Mrs Thatcher said about why she wasn't keen on referendums, they become an opportunity to kick an unpopular government.
I mean how many people ignored the merits of AV just to give Clegg a kicking.
But, there aren't any merits to AV.
Scores 5 in scrabble. That is an advantage, if it is permissible.
It's not; there are no two letter words with V permissible in Scrabble.
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
1) They can be withdrawn at any time up to the point unless a vote of confidence has been triggered. There is no time limit
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Under PR in 2015 UKIP would have had 70 odd MPs, now that would have set the cat among the pigeons.
That would have been a lot healthier
It would have met with my approval, please consider there wouldn't have been a GE in 2017 and those kippers would still be there. And you'd be flinging your arms around and calling for FPTP.
It seems you like democracy on your terms.
No, I wouldn't. And no, I don't.
I'm sure you'd agree that with dozens of UKIP MPs the Brexit process would be much further down the line.
On the other hand there would be more LD and Green MPs too, depending on the PR system.
I rather think a Holyrood style Additional Member system would be good.
Merge all current constituencies, 2 into one, and create X number of list seats. Perhaps 275 so as to have 600 MPs.
All she needed to say was, "If a referendum was held, now - and it is a hypothetical question, Iain, because we're not going to have one as I'm focused on getting on and delivering the mandate the British people gave the Government last year - of course I would vote to support the Government's current policy of getting on and making a success of Brexit."
But, she didn't.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
She would. She is. Although with plenty of bravado since she wanted the job (PM) and she felt this was the only way she could get it. She's rather less intelligent than Cameron if she felt she could get away with it.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Yes.
IMO, under 3+ member STV, UKIP(/BNP?) would have emerged as an electoral force soon after 2008 and pushed Lab & Con to take their supporters' grievances seriously.
Who knows how the GE/coalitions would have played out, but I think it's pretty unlikely we'd have ended up with a ridiculous all-or nothing IN/OUT referendum, framed as a proxy anti-austerity/anti-status quo vote.
The current mess could have been avoided if Farage & co had been in parliament for a few years, putting the soft/hard leave case forward & having it challenged (& IMO discredited) from different angles by lab/con/ld/BNP(?)
If leavers had won the country over to their cause, it would have at least been a responsible, negotiated brexit that had been a long time coming.
Not this mess.
I could be reaching, but my guess is that if elections were regularly returning 100 MP's to the Right of the Conservatives, people who are hostile to Brexit would rapidly become hostile to STV.
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
1) They can be withdrawn at any time up to the point unless a vote of confidence has been triggered. There is no time limit
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I presume individual letters come off the list if the MP dies, resigns or loses his/her seat? (Though one assumes not many were submitted before the GE.)
I could be reaching, but my guess is that if elections were regularly returning 100 MP's to the Right of the Conservatives, people who are hostile to Brexit would rapidly become hostile to STV.
No doubt. Very few people will advocate a form of PR that lets "extremists" in. What the usually want is more of their side and their friends, and less of the others.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Yes.
IMO, under 3+ member STV, UKIP(/BNP?) would have emerged as an electoral force soon after 2008 and pushed Lab & Con to take their supporters' grievances seriously.
Who knows how the GE/coalitions would have played out, but I think it's pretty unlikely we'd have ended up with a ridiculous all-or nothing IN/OUT referendum, framed as a proxy anti-austerity/anti-status quo vote.
The current mess could have been avoided if Farage & co had been in parliament for a few years, putting the soft/hard leave case forward & having it challenged (& IMO discredited) from different angles by lab/con/ld/BNP(?)
If leavers had won the country over to their cause, it would have at least been a responsible, negotiated brexit that had been a long time coming.
Not this mess.
I could be reaching, but my guess is that if elections were regularly returning 100 MP's to the Right of the Conservatives, people who are hostile to Brexit would rapidly become hostile to STV.
There would be compensatory benefits in more LD and Green MPs, so swings and roundabouts.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More ime at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
The reason we have elections is precisely to reduce the likelihood of the demos (or anyone else) making wrong decisions.
Run that by me again.
I think it is what Mrs Thatcher said about why she wasn't keen on referendums, they become an opportunity to kick an unpopular government.
I mean how many people ignored the merits of AV just to give Clegg a kicking.
But, there aren't any merits to AV.
Scores 5 in scrabble. That is an advantage, if it is permissible.
It's not; there are no two letter words with V permissible in Scrabble.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
The reason we have elections is precisely to reduce the likelihood of the demos (or anyone else) making wrong decisions.
Run that by me again.
I think it is what Mrs Thatcher said about why she wasn't keen on referendums, they become an opportunity to kick an unpopular government.
I mean how many people ignored the merits of AV just to give Clegg a kicking.
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
1) They can be withdrawn at any time up to the point unless a vote of confidence has been triggered. There is no time limit
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I presume individual letters come off the list if the MP dies, resigns or loses his/her seat? (Though one assumes not many were submitted before the GE.)
Yup, you have to be a current MP in receipt of the Tory whip.
So Anne Marie Morris can't participate as things stand.
Theresa has landed herself in a bit of a hole again. The optics also look terrible - that she's overseeing a political project, Brexit, that she can't even bring herself to admit she'd vote to continue with. This doesn't help the Brexit brand at all, at a time that it needs all the propping up it can get.
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
1) They can be withdrawn at any time up to the point unless a vote of confidence has been triggered. There is no time limit
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I presume individual letters come off the list if the MP dies, resigns or loses his/her seat? (Though one assumes not many were submitted before the GE.)
Yup, you have to be a current MP in receipt of the Tory whip.
So Anne Marie Morris can't participate as things stand.
So she could just direct the government whips to remove the Tory whip from any dissenters. Simples!
Where Mrs May struggles is thinking on her feet. My response to the question would have been 'The people have spoken, the bastards'
A better response would have been "We are attempting to implement what was said by the No camp in the referendum but we can't find anything that they said was true." (Cue, howls of outrage by the nut jobs and fruit loons both in her party and beyond). "We'll get the best deal we can and then put it to Parliament to decide whether this is acceptable or not".
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Under PR in 2015 UKIP would have had 70 odd MPs, now that would have set the cat among the pigeons.
That would have been a lot healthier though because it would have given representation to the UKIP agenda, which a lot of people liked. It would also have given the electorate a chance to see just how awful UKIP were once they actually got into Parliament. That too would have been very healthy.
It would have met with my approval, please consider there wouldn't have been a GE in 2017 and those kippers would still be there. And you'd be flinging your arms around and calling for FPTP.
It seems you like democracy on your terms.
No, I wouldn't. And no, I don't.
I'm sure you'd agree that with dozens of UKIP MPs the Brexit process would be much further down the line.
Not at all. If Leave was marginalised in a large Ukip group, and the Tory party less beholden to its Leave wing, it's less likely there would've been a referendum (since it would've been seen as peripheral to getting things done in government).
And even if the referendum had gone ahead and Leave had still won, I can't believe that the government would've wanted to involve Ukip in the Brexit process. If it did, the process would be in even geater disrepute than it is.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
She needs to recall her previous -and rather good answer given in the election campaign -that she voted Remain but that the People had spoken and she would make Leave a success. She has the advantage that she said very little during the referendum campaign that can be held against her now. But she isnt very good at interviews and handling tricky interviewers -|(nor is Boris Johnson) and this is another reason why she will need to step down.
Where Mrs May struggles is thinking on her feet. My response to the question would have been 'The people have spoken, the bastards'
A better response would have been "We are attempting to implement what was said by the No camp in the referendum but we can't find anything that they said was true." (Cue, howls of outrage by the nut jobs and fruit loons both in her party and beyond). "We'll get the best deal we can and then put it to Parliament to decide whether this is acceptable or not".
Alternatively she could have been honest and answered "Would I f*ck"!
I could be reaching, but my guess is that if elections were regularly returning 100 MP's to the Right of the Conservatives, people who are hostile to Brexit would rapidly become hostile to STV.
No doubt. Very few people will advocate a form of PR that lets "extremists" in. What the usually want is more of their side and their friends, and less of the others.
I hear this, but I don't see it. Many countries have extremists in parliament and they cope fine. They just don't include them in government. (Ukip aren't really extremists anyway.)
She needs to recall her previous -and rather good answer given in the election campaign -that she voted Remain but that the People had spoken and she would make Leave a success. She has the advantage that she said very little during the referendum campaign that can be held against her now. But she isnt very good at interviews and handling tricky interviewers -|(nor is Boris Johnson) and this is another reason why she will need to step down.
Her great advantage is that she appears to have the hide of a rhinoceros. I cannot see her going before the next GE.
She needs to recall her previous -and rather good answer given in the election campaign -that she voted Remain but that the People had spoken and she would make Leave a success. She has the advantage that she said very little during the referendum campaign that can be held against her now. But she isnt very good at interviews and handling tricky interviewers -|(nor is Boris Johnson) and this is another reason why she will need to step down.
Her great advantage is that she appears to have the hide of a rhinoceros. I cannot see her going before the next GE.
A few weeks ago I'd have agreed but she can't cope much longer
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
Once the referendum was given it has to be respected, or democracy fails.
Well in this case, yes, but only because Parliament agreed to be bound by it. They could just as easily have said 'have a referendum and we'll consider the outcome'. That too would have been democratic, and also a damn sight more sensible.
What perplexes me is the number of people who think that a referendum is somehow synonymous with democracy, or even some extremely pure form of it. It's nothing of the sort, and even in its more appropriate uses it is still government by populism, which is of course highly flawed, as Brexit itself well illustrates.
Peter, we've had an election post the referendum. The people could have voted for the Liberal Democrats, who advocated staying in the EU. If the Liberal Democrats had swept to power under a "remain in the EU flag", then I would regard their mandate as superseding the referendum.
But that didn't happen. The people voted overwhelmingly for parties that wished to implement the EU referendum vote.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
All she needed to say was, "If a referendum was held, now - and it is a hypothetical question, Iain, because we're not going to have one as I'm focused on getting on and delivering the mandate the British people gave the Government last year - of course I would vote to support the Government's current policy of getting on and making a success of Brexit."
But, she didn't.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
She would. She is. Although with plenty of bravado since she wanted the job (PM) and she felt this was the only way she could get it. She's rather less intelligent than Cameron if she felt she could get away with it.
You'd have thought she'd have either changed her mind upon reflection and experience, like Niall Ferguson, or Jeremy Hunt, or sufficient belief in her Government's policy for the UK's post-Brexit future to vote for it given she'd be in charge.
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
1) They can be withdrawn at any time up to the point unless a vote of confidence has been triggered. There is no time limit
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I presume individual letters come off the list if the MP dies, resigns or loses his/her seat? (Though one assumes not many were submitted before the GE.)
Yup, you have to be a current MP in receipt of the Tory whip.
So Anne Marie Morris can't participate as things stand.
So she could just direct the government whips to remove the Tory whip from any dissenters. Simples!
Do the letters survive dissolution and a GE if the senders are re-elected! That sounds fun - you end up going from under 15% to over 15% without anyone sending a letter. Or if you are close and an MP resigns or dies or has the whip withdrawn and they hadnt sent a letter. (At 313 MPs the quota reduces from 48 to 47 by my reckoning).
Am I getting too theoretical? What am I saying, you run 30 AV threads a year on this site.
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
1) They can be withdrawn at any time up to the point unless a vote of confidence has been triggered. There is no time limit
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I presume individual letters come off the list if the MP dies, resigns or loses his/her seat? (Though one assumes not many were submitted before the GE.)
Yup, you have to be a current MP in receipt of the Tory whip.
So Anne Marie Morris can't participate as things stand.
So she could just direct the government whips to remove the Tory whip from any dissenters. Simples!
You have to be a loyal Conservative to sign a letter against May. If you want to sign a letter against May then you clearly are not a loyal Conservative.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
Once the referendum was given it has to be respected, or democracy fails.
Well in this case, yes, but only because Parliament agreed to be bound by it. They could just as easily have said 'have a referendum and we'll consider the outcome'. That too would have been democratic, and also a damn sight more sensible.
What perplexes me is the number of people who think that a referendum is somehow synonymous with democracy, or even some extremely pure form of it. It's nothing of the sort, and even in its more appropriate uses it is still government by populism, which is of course highly flawed, as Brexit itself well illustrates.
Peter, we've had an election post the referendum. The people could have voted for the Liberal Democrats, who advocated staying in the EU. If the Liberal Democrats had swept to power under a "remain in the EU flag", then I would regard their mandate as superseding the referendum.
But that didn't happen. The people voted overwhelmingly for parties that wished to implement the EU referendum vote.
Wretched cant. Theresa May called an election specifically because she said that forces at Westminster, including Labour, were undermining Brexit. Watch her statement again and tell me the election result was an endorsement of leaving the EU.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Yes.
IMO, under 3+ member STV, UKIP(/BNP?) would have emerged as an electoral force soon after 2008 and pushed Lab & Con to take their supporters' grievances seriously.
Who knows how the GE/coalitions would have played out, but I think it's pretty unlikely we'd have ended up with a ridiculous all-or nothing IN/OUT referendum, framed as a proxy anti-austerity/anti-status quo vote.
The current mess could have been avoided if Farage & co had been in parliament for a few years, putting the soft/hard leave case forward & having it challenged (& IMO discredited) from different angles by lab/con/ld/BNP(?)
If leavers had won the country over to their cause, it would have at least been a responsible, negotiated brexit that had been a long time coming.
Not this mess.
I could be reaching, but my guess is that if elections were regularly returning 100 MP's to the Right of the Conservatives, people who are hostile to Brexit would rapidly become hostile to STV.
Like giving the plebs the vote, giving graduates extra ones, extending it to 16 year olds, whilst stripping it away from old people, many people's interpretations of democracy can be remarkably flexible when the votes aren't going the right way.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Rafael Behr is proving to be one of the smartest analysts of the politics of Brexit. He has an uncanny understanding of the Leaver psychology.
There is a contradiction here that the likes of John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin do not acknowledge, perhaps even to themselves. To make “no deal” sound acceptable, they must belittle the scale of upheaval, yet the only reason for accepting it would be to accelerate drastic change. They do not acknowledge the cliff but they dream of launching from its edge, soaring over the Atlantic once the EU shackles are broken.
The psychology of this is rooted in pre-Brexit Conservative folklore. It starts in veneration of Margaret Thatcher’s pugnacious dismantling of state-run industry in the 1980s. I don’t intend here to relitigate the case for and against those reforms. The point, for the Brexiters, is not whether Thatcher’s vision was the best one (this is beyond question in Tory theology), but that it could be done only by economic violence. The status quo needed smashing.
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
1) They can be withdrawn at any time up to the point unless a vote of confidence has been triggered. There is no time limit
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I presume individual letters come off the list if the MP dies, resigns or loses his/her seat? (Though one assumes not many were submitted before the GE.)
Yup, you have to be a current MP in receipt of the Tory whip.
So Anne Marie Morris can't participate as things stand.
So she could just direct the government whips to remove the Tory whip from any dissenters. Simples!
You have to be a loyal Conservative to sign a letter against May. If you want to sign a letter against May then you clearly are not a loyal Conservative.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
Once the referendum was given it has to be respected, or democracy fails.
Well in this case, yes, but only because Parliament agreed to be bound by it. They could just as easily have said 'have a referendum and we'll consider the outcome'. That too would have been democratic, and also a damn sight more sensible.
What perplexes me is the number of people who think that a referendum is somehow synonymous with democracy, or even some extremely pure form of it. It's nothing of the sort, and even in its more appropriate uses it is still government by populism, which is of course highly flawed, as Brexit itself well illustrates.
Peter, we've had an election post the referendum. The people could have voted for the Liberal Democrats, who advocated staying in the EU. If the Liberal Democrats had swept to power under a "remain in the EU flag", then I would regard their mandate as superseding the referendum.
But that didn't happen. The people voted overwhelmingly for parties that wished to implement the EU referendum vote.
Wretched cant. Theresa May called an election specifically because she said that forces at Westminster, including Labour, were undermining Brexit. Watch her statement again and tell me the election result was an endorsement of leaving the EU.
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
1) They can be withdrawn at any time up to the point unless a vote of confidence has been triggered. There is no time limit
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I presume individual letters come off the list if the MP dies, resigns or loses his/her seat? (Though one assumes not many were submitted before the GE.)
Yup, you have to be a current MP in receipt of the Tory whip.
So Anne Marie Morris can't participate as things stand.
So she could just direct the government whips to remove the Tory whip from any dissenters. Simples!
You have to be a loyal Conservative to sign a letter against May. If you want to sign a letter against May then you clearly are not a loyal Conservative.
I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.
Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.
If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
Under PR in 2015 UKIP would have had 70 odd MPs, now that would have set the cat among the pigeons.
That would have been a lot healthier though because it would have given representation to the UKIP agenda, which a lot of people liked. It would also have given the electorate a chance to see just how awful UKIP were once they actually got into Parliament. That too would have been very healthy.
It would have met with my approval, please consider there wouldn't have been a GE in 2017 and those kippers would still be there. And you'd be flinging your arms around and calling for FPTP.
It seems you like democracy on your terms.
No, I wouldn't. And no, I don't.
I'm sure you'd agree that with dozens of UKIP MPs the Brexit process would be much further down the line.
Not at all. If Leave was marginalised in a large Ukip group, and the Tory party less beholden to its Leave wing, it's less likely there would've been a referendum (since it would've been seen as peripheral to getting things done in government).
And even if the referendum had gone ahead and Leave had still won, I can't believe that the government would've wanted to involve Ukip in the Brexit process. If it did, the process would be in even geater disrepute than it is.
Except it would be that large UKIP group that would most likely be the deciding factor on whether or not the Tories were in power. Moreover do not think that all the Tories would be Remainers. There would still be large numbers who objected to some aspects of UKIP policy but were in favour of leaving the EU.
The maths simply does not work for an openly pro-EU Conservative party.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Given the Euro has been established for well over 15 years I think it's safe to say that the UK has survived well enough without it.
Outside the Euro, we're not in the inner core of EU decision making. But, had we joined, I don't see how we would have moved the EU in any different direction from that of ever closer union, given we'd have explicitly signed up for it.
The best I can say (positively) is we might have been able to push more quickly for the development of the single market in services, had a bit more influence on European financial services regulation, and probably had a much bigger boom in the years leading up to 2008.
But, we'd then have suffered an almighty crash.
We'd have lost the ability to do QE, adjust our interest rates, and use our currency as an automatic stabiliser, not to mention all the further political and economic integration to come in the interests of the Euro's long-term stability, and I suspect British politics would currently be extremely febrile and dominated by debate on whether to bring back Sterling.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
Oh dear, Topping has been at the Port again.
Go to bed before you make a fool of yourself again.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Certainly both deaths from formerly legal highs and the number of homeless zombies on spice show that making them illegal is a mixed result at best. Decriminalisation perhaps rather than legalisation.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
1) They can be withdrawn at any time up to the point unless a vote of confidence has been triggered. There is no time limit
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I presume individual letters come off the list if the MP dies, resigns or loses his/her seat? (Though one assumes not many were submitted before the GE.)
Yup, you have to be a current MP in receipt of the Tory whip.
So Anne Marie Morris can't participate as things stand.
So she could just direct the government whips to remove the Tory whip from any dissenters. Simples!
You have to be a loyal Conservative to sign a letter against May. If you want to sign a letter against May then you clearly are not a loyal Conservative.
Guess which book I am currently reading...
Catch-22?
Got it in one!
Great book! Although I keep promising myself that one day I am going to get a copy, cut it up, and read all the chapters in chronological order.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
Oh dear, Topping has been at the Port again.
Go to bed before you make a fool of yourself again.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
As I pointed out before the referendum: If it is economically impossible/impractical to Leave (as the Remainers keep pointing out), then we have already lost our sovereignty.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Wretched cant. Theresa May called an election specifically because she said that forces at Westminster, including Labour, were undermining Brexit. Watch her statement again and tell me the election result was an endorsement of leaving the EU.
People voted against May because she is useless and because she and her party have managed to upset both the young (with tuition fees and no housing prospects) and the old (with the removal of the triple lock and the late life care proposals).
But the people also voted overwhelmingly for 2 parties that were in favour not only of Brexit but of what most would term a hard Brexit.
The precious few votes that were in favour of reversing the decision went to the Lib Dems who did not exactly shine at all, and in Scotland to the SNP who saw their support drop dramatically.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
Oh dear, Topping has been at the Port again.
Go to bed before you make a fool of yourself again.
QED
Um no. I am on shift so definitely no alcohol for me. Take another slurp old boy.
Comments
Where we definitely agree is that train has certainly left the station, and we are on it.
The way the likes of Blair and Osborne have received huge amounts from High Finance immediately on leaving government doesn't go down well either.
We were not 'all in this together'.
IMO, under 3+ member STV, UKIP(/BNP?) would have emerged as an electoral force soon after 2008 and pushed Lab & Con to take their supporters' grievances seriously.
Who knows how the GE/coalitions would have played out, but I think it's pretty unlikely we'd have ended up with a ridiculous all-or nothing IN/OUT referendum, framed as a proxy anti-austerity/anti-status quo vote.
The current mess could have been avoided if Farage & co had been in parliament for a few years, putting the soft/hard leave case forward & having it challenged (& IMO discredited) from different angles by lab/con/ld/BNP(?)
If leavers had won the country over to their cause, it would have at least been a responsible, negotiated brexit that had been a long time coming.
Not this mess.
A. The People have spoken and she's implementing their decision.
B. There's not going to be another referendum.
Of course ideally we'd have a "Believer" implementing the policy but Boris and Gove screwed that up so we are where we are...
Democracy is doing what you want?
Interesting view I must say.
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid?
2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to write?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
See what I mean about democracy on your terms?
I'll be in Beijing next week so we shall see what they have to say.
You might have missed something there.
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I rather think a Holyrood style Additional Member system would be good.
Merge all current constituencies, 2 into one, and create X number of list seats. Perhaps 275 so as to have 600 MPs.
My response to the question would have been
'The people have spoken, the bastards'
Nah. Should have been: 'Democracy is democracy'.
So Anne Marie Morris can't participate as things stand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfP2J-jtCkM
#enjoy
And even if the referendum had gone ahead and Leave had still won, I can't believe that the government would've wanted to involve Ukip in the Brexit process. If it did, the process would be in even geater disrepute than it is.
But that didn't happen. The people voted overwhelmingly for parties that wished to implement the EU referendum vote.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
Am I getting too theoretical? What am I saying, you run 30 AV threads a year on this site.If you want to sign a letter against May then you clearly are not a loyal Conservative.
Guess which book I am currently reading...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39630009
Leave 2/5
Remain 7/4
would be my tissue
There are very few punters on this site unfortunately
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
There is a contradiction here that the likes of John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin do not acknowledge, perhaps even to themselves. To make “no deal” sound acceptable, they must belittle the scale of upheaval, yet the only reason for accepting it would be to accelerate drastic change. They do not acknowledge the cliff but they dream of launching from its edge, soaring over the Atlantic once the EU shackles are broken.
The psychology of this is rooted in pre-Brexit Conservative folklore. It starts in veneration of Margaret Thatcher’s pugnacious dismantling of state-run industry in the 1980s. I don’t intend here to relitigate the case for and against those reforms. The point, for the Brexiters, is not whether Thatcher’s vision was the best one (this is beyond question in Tory theology), but that it could be done only by economic violence. The status quo needed smashing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/10/brexit-cliff-edge-eu-hardline-thatcherism-uk-economy
The maths simply does not work for an openly pro-EU Conservative party.
A second Leave campaign would be a complete embarrassment.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Outside the Euro, we're not in the inner core of EU decision making. But, had we joined, I don't see how we would have moved the EU in any different direction from that of ever closer union, given we'd have explicitly signed up for it.
The best I can say (positively) is we might have been able to push more quickly for the development of the single market in services, had a bit more influence on European financial services regulation, and probably had a much bigger boom in the years leading up to 2008.
But, we'd then have suffered an almighty crash.
We'd have lost the ability to do QE, adjust our interest rates, and use our currency as an automatic stabiliser, not to mention all the further political and economic integration to come in the interests of the Euro's long-term stability, and I suspect British politics would currently be extremely febrile and dominated by debate on whether to bring back Sterling.
Go to bed before you make a fool of yourself again.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
As I pointed out before the referendum: If it is economically impossible/impractical to Leave (as the Remainers keep pointing out), then we have already lost our sovereignty.
But the people also voted overwhelmingly for 2 parties that were in favour not only of Brexit but of what most would term a hard Brexit.
The precious few votes that were in favour of reversing the decision went to the Lib Dems who did not exactly shine at all, and in Scotland to the SNP who saw their support drop dramatically.