"The problem for strong leavers..." A lot of 'strong leavers' - i.e. those whose first preference is WTO terms - would rather remain in the EU than leave on the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement. This has been a big issue with the WA all along: why back the deal when no-deal and remain are both superior options?
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. Pulpstar, my understanding is the Yorkshire Party's raison d'etre is to carve England into pathetic little regional assemblies. > > One does not approve.
This lot are available on the East Midlands ballot (As The independent Network)
> @IanB2 said: > I was interested in the D’Hondt discussion and thought I would do some modelling, > > I took a region like London with eight seats, assumed seven political parties, and split the vote randomly between them so that each party scored somewhere between 3-35% of the total vote. Using Excel I worked out the seats for each party, then replicated the exercise over and over to model a large number of outcomes. > > The results in terms of seats for vote share were are follows (percentage vote shares rounded to the nearest whole number, so “7%” really means 6.5-7.49%): > > 6% or less = no seats > 7% = an eighth chance of a seat > 8% = a quarter chance of a seat > 9% = seven eights chance of a seat > 10% = almost always one seat > 11%-13% = one seat > 14% = one seat, very occasionally two > 15% = one seat, a twelfth chance of a second > 16% = one seat, a quarter chance of a second > 17% = one seat or two seats about half the time each > 18% = two seats three quarters of the time, otherwise one > 19%-26% = two seats > > At 27% and above there was a rising chance for a third seat, which became a certainty at about 33%. > > The critical zones where additional votes are most likely to “count” are therefore around 8-9% for winning the first seat, and 16-18% for winning the second, and 27-31% for the third. At all other ratings the number of seats was a given regardless of how other parties performed. > > I then looked at over- and under-representation, and interestingly the pattern was (roughly - I couldn’t be bothered to count up) as follows: > > Above 30% vote share a party is equally likely to be over or under represented > Between 25-30% a party is mostly underrepresented > Between 20-25% a party is mostly overrepresented > Between 15-20% there is a mix of over or under representation > Between 13-15% a party is mostly underrepresented > Between 9-12% a party is mostly overrepresented > At 8% there is a mix, and at 7% and below mostly underrepresentation. > > What this illustrates is that D’Hondt not so much favours the larger parties, as sometimes assumed, but has a series of “steps” or narrow vote share bands, for qualifying for the next seat, and these are obviously driven mathematically by the size of the region. > > In terms of tactical voting (in this London example), voters need to work out which parties are most likely to fall into the critical 8-9% and 16-18% bands, and choose the one of those that they prefer the most. >
What my analysis below means for the Remain parties is that they may not be as badly off as has been assumed, at least in the larger regions, provided that they can all poll at 9% or above, which currently looks difficult only for CUK. Indeed it would be theoretically possible for all of them to come in at the overrepresented bands and do better separately than together.
The catch of course is that some of the regions are a lot smaller and hence the vote share hurdles very much higher.
I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May.
Well I have toyed with voting LD to remind the Cons (as per @blueblue ) that I am very much against the bonkers wing of the party. How do I know that my Cons vote, if I cast it, won't be interpreted by Baker, Francois and gang that they should keep going and that "one more push" will see them triumph?
As it is I will be considering both the new leader and my membership card very closely once May does go (although today I voted for my association to vote against the vote of no confidence in her as brought by the National Conservative Convention).
Completely off topic but it must be comforting for MUFC fans to know that even after a disappointing season that the Premiership trophy is still in Manchester
Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal.
> @TOPPING said: > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft. > > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May. > > Well I have toyed with voting LD to remind the Cons (as per @blueblue ) that I am very much against the bonkers wing of the party. How do I know that my Cons vote, if I cast it, won't be interpreted by Baker, Francois and gang that they should keep going and that "one more push" will see them triumph? > > As it is I will be considering both the new leader and my membership card very closely once May does go (although today I voted for my association to vote against the vote of no confidence in her as brought by the National Conservative Convention).
I predict that the biggest false assumption made by pundits and commentators will be to lump the Tory EU votes into a “Leaver” box when the reality is that the residual Tories will mostly be remainers.
Gosh if you are there at 21 and one believes the tendency is to become more reactionary with age the mind boggles at where you will likely end up at 65. Certainly not a member of the Liberal Democrats.
What my analysis below means for the Remain parties is that they may not be as badly off as has been assumed, at least in the larger regions, provided that they can all poll at 9% or above, which currently looks difficult only for CUK. Indeed it would be theoretically possible for all of them to come in at the overrepresented bands and do better separately than together.
The catch of course is that some of the regions are a lot smaller and hence the vote share hurdles very much higher.
You'll always do at least as well with complete pooling of the vote.
The catch is that you won't get complete pooling - going from two parties on 11% to {one on 16% and one on 6%} is not a good trade. Which is why Gina Miller's vote-LibDem website is tendentious.
Trying to get complete pooling by standing a Remain Alliance would have been much better, but even then you may lose voters to abstention or independents etc. You might of course attract more voters from elsewhere.
> @logical_song said: > > @Dadge said: > > Having lent my vote to Labour for a couple of years, at GE level at least, I'm considering my options. While the Tories are in disarray, I'm concerned now less with "keep the Tories out" than with "get PR in". Is Farage still in favour of PR? If so, I'd seriously consider voting for him tactically to defeat a Labour candidate. The ends justify the means. Or do they? > > Farage may well still be in favour of PR, but the only way you will get PR is by electing MPs who are in favour of PR, so probably your best bet at the next GE is the most likely to win where you are of LibDem, Green, SNP, Plaid possibly even Tory or Labour depending on the candidate. > As regards the Euros, it doesn't really matter, maybe not Labour or Tory,
If Brexit are polling above LD and Greens for Westminster elections, there's going to be a lot of seats where they're the "best bet".
> @IanB2 said: > > @TOPPING said: > > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft. > > > > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May. > > > > Well I have toyed with voting LD to remind the Cons (as per @blueblue ) that I am very much against the bonkers wing of the party. How do I know that my Cons vote, if I cast it, won't be interpreted by Baker, Francois and gang that they should keep going and that "one more push" will see them triumph? > > > > As it is I will be considering both the new leader and my membership card very closely once May does go (although today I voted for my association to vote against the vote of no confidence in her as brought by the National Conservative Convention). > > I predict that the biggest false assumption made by pundits and commentators will be to lump the Tory EU votes into a “Leaver” box when the reality is that the residual Tories will mostly be remainers.
The residual Tories will be those backing May's Shit Deal.
I predict that the biggest false assumption made by pundits and commentators will be to lump the Tory EU votes into a “Leaver” box when the reality is that the residual Tories will mostly be remainers.
Yes they probably will and tbf it is leaving, May's deal is leaving. My concern is that it will give succour to the loons.
> @Dadge said: > > @logical_song said: > > > @Dadge said: > > > Having lent my vote to Labour for a couple of years, at GE level at least, I'm considering my options. While the Tories are in disarray, I'm concerned now less with "keep the Tories out" than with "get PR in". Is Farage still in favour of PR? If so, I'd seriously consider voting for him tactically to defeat a Labour candidate. The ends justify the means. Or do they? > > > > Farage may well still be in favour of PR, but the only way you will get PR is by electing MPs who are in favour of PR, so probably your best bet at the next GE is the most likely to win where you are of LibDem, Green, SNP, Plaid possibly even Tory or Labour depending on the candidate. > > As regards the Euros, it doesn't really matter, maybe not Labour or Tory, > > If Brexit are polling above LD and Greens for Westminster elections, there's going to be a lot of seats where they're the "best bet".
> @TOPPING said: > The residual Tories will be those backing May's Shit Deal. > > If the past three years have proved nothing else it is that May's deal is not shit.
It is in the sense that it is Brexit. What Brexiteers struggle with is that the two things are synonymous.
> @Brom said: > > @blueblue said: > > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in... > > I too don't wish for a no deal Brexit, but I also want the referendum result to be delivered, thus I shall vote for The Brexit Party in the hope it will focus minds and move us away from the nonsense of a People's Vote.
So you'll vote for the party that wants a No Deal Brexit, but you don't wish for a no deal Brexit. Okaaaay.
Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal.
We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit.
> @logical_song said: > > @Brom said: > > > @blueblue said: > > > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in... > > > > I too don't wish for a no deal Brexit, but I also want the referendum result to be delivered, thus I shall vote for The Brexit Party in the hope it will focus minds and move us away from the nonsense of a People's Vote. > > So you'll vote for the party that wants a No Deal Brexit, but you don't wish for a no deal Brexit. Okaaaay.
It is a massive problem.
As a Leaver I can rule out most of the protest parties in the Euros.
> > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
>
> I too don't wish for a no deal Brexit, but I also want the referendum result to be delivered, thus I shall vote for The Brexit Party in the hope it will focus minds and move us away from the nonsense of a People's Vote.
So you'll vote for the party that wants a No Deal Brexit, but you don't wish for a no deal Brexit. Okaaaay.
I think that's more likely to have the desired effect than @TOPPING voting for the Lib Dems, to be fair. No Deal isn't going to happen, given the current Parliament, however well the Brexit Party do. Remain (via a second referendum) could.
> @Streeter said: > Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal. > > We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit.
> Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal.
>
> We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit.
> @Streeter said: > > @Streeter said: > > > Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal. > > > > > > We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit. > > > > The royal we, I assume? > > Where is your evidence to the contrary?
That the deal involves staying in the EU for an additional period, and a possibility of a permanent customs union/single market membership if no other deal is negotiated. Sounds pretty soft to me.
> @Pulpstar said: > > @Dadge said: > > > @logical_song said: > > > > @Dadge said: > > > > Having lent my vote to Labour for a couple of years, at GE level at least, I'm considering my options. While the Tories are in disarray, I'm concerned now less with "keep the Tories out" than with "get PR in". Is Farage still in favour of PR? If so, I'd seriously consider voting for him tactically to defeat a Labour candidate. The ends justify the means. Or do they? > > > > > > Farage may well still be in favour of PR, but the only way you will get PR is by electing MPs who are in favour of PR, so probably your best bet at the next GE is the most likely to win where you are of LibDem, Green, SNP, Plaid possibly even Tory or Labour depending on the candidate. > > > As regards the Euros, it doesn't really matter, maybe not Labour or Tory, > > > > If Brexit are polling above LD and Greens for Westminster elections, there's going to be a lot of seats where they're the "best bet". > > North East springs to mind.
Yes, the dilemma at the next GE might very well be whether centrist PR supporters give Farage a one-time go to see if he can help deliver a fairer voting system that give the smaller centre parties a better crack going forward.
> > Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal.
>
> >
>
> > We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit.
>
>
>
> The royal we, I assume?
>
> Where is your evidence to the contrary?
That the deal involves staying in the EU for an additional period, and a possibility of a permanent customs union/single market membership if no other deal is negotiated. Sounds pretty soft to me.
May is not proposing membership of the single market or a customs union ergo she is not proposing a soft Brexit.
> @Streeter said: > > @Streeter said: > > > > @Streeter said: > > > > > > > Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit. > > > > > > > > > > > > The royal we, I assume? > > > > > > Where is your evidence to the contrary? > > > > That the deal involves staying in the EU for an additional period, and a possibility of a permanent customs union/single market membership if no other deal is negotiated. Sounds pretty soft to me. > > May is not proposing membership of the single market or a customs union ergo she is not proposing a soft Brexit.
Mr. Streeter, the deal involves entering a backstop that is permanent unless the EU agrees we can end it. That's a 'hard' departure in the same way the Battle of Tigranocerta was a glorious day in Armenian history.
If you disagree, then fine, but pretending your opinion is a fact or a consensus position is nonsense.
The problem with the hard/soft distinction is that I understood the difference to be roughly whether the relationship was close enough to allow for freedom of movement (soft) or not (hard), but May's Deal is pretty explicitly the softest possible without freedom of movement.
So I definitely see it as hard Brexit, but also not surprising that it's not hard enough for many.
> @Tissue_Price said: > What my analysis below means for the Remain parties is that they may not be as badly off as has been assumed, at least in the larger regions, provided that they can all poll at 9% or above, which currently looks difficult only for CUK. Indeed it would be theoretically possible for all of them to come in at the overrepresented bands and do better separately than together. > > > > The catch of course is that some of the regions are a lot smaller and hence the vote share hurdles very much higher. > > You'll always do at least as well with complete pooling of the vote. > > The catch is that you won't get complete pooling - going from two parties on 11% to {one on 16% and one on 6%} is not a good trade. Which is why Gina Miller's vote-LibDem website is tendentious. > > Trying to get complete pooling by standing a Remain Alliance would have been much better, but even then you may lose voters to abstention or independents etc. You might of course attract more voters from elsewhere.
You say that as if you think it is mathematically true, but I don't believe that it is. Say, for example that in London the LDs, CUK and Greens all came in around the 9% level - it's quite probable they'd all come away with one seat each, whereas with 27% they would most likely get just two.
> @IanB2 said: > I was interested in the D’Hondt discussion and thought I would do some modelling, > > I took a region like London with eight seats, assumed seven political parties, and split the vote randomly between them so that each party scored somewhere between 3-35% of the total vote. Using Excel I worked out the seats for each party, then replicated the exercise over and over to model a large number of outcomes. > > The results in terms of seats for vote share were are follows (percentage vote shares rounded to the nearest whole number, so “7%” really means 6.5-7.49%): > > 6% or less = no seats > 7% = an eighth chance of a seat > 8% = a quarter chance of a seat > 9% = seven eights chance of a seat > 10% = almost always one seat > 11%-13% = one seat > 14% = one seat, very occasionally two > 15% = one seat, a twelfth chance of a second > 16% = one seat, a quarter chance of a second > 17% = one seat or two seats about half the time each > 18% = two seats three quarters of the time, otherwise one > 19%-26% = two seats > > At 27% and above there was a rising chance for a third seat, which became a certainty at about 33%. > > The critical zones where additional votes are most likely to “count” are therefore around 8-9% for winning the first seat, and 16-18% for winning the second, and 27-31% for the third. At all other ratings the number of seats was a given regardless of how other parties performed. > > I then looked at over- and under-representation, and interestingly the pattern was (roughly - I couldn’t be bothered to count up) as follows: > > Above 30% vote share a party is equally likely to be over or under represented > Between 25-30% a party is mostly underrepresented > Between 20-25% a party is mostly overrepresented > Between 15-20% there is a mix of over or under representation > Between 13-15% a party is mostly underrepresented > Between 9-12% a party is mostly overrepresented > At 8% there is a mix, and at 7% and below mostly underrepresentation. > > What this illustrates is that D’Hondt not so much favours the larger parties, as sometimes assumed, but has a series of “steps” or narrow vote share bands, for qualifying for the next seat, and these are obviously driven mathematically by the size of the region. > > In terms of tactical voting (in this London example), voters need to work out which parties are most likely to fall into the critical 8-9% and 16-18% bands, and choose the one of those that they prefer the most. >
Thanks Ian. That is a fascinating and extremely useful guide.
Mr. Streeter, the deal involves entering a backstop that is permanent unless the EU agrees we can end it. That's a 'hard' departure in the same way the Battle of Tigranocerta was a glorious day in Armenian history.
If you disagree, then fine, but pretending your opinion is a fact or a consensus position is nonsense.
As I said this morning, and you offered nothing of substance in reply, is that when the term ‘soft Brexit’ was coined it clearly meant SM + CU + FOM = Norway.
To now pretend that May’s deal is a soft Brexit is another Leavers’ lie, designed to make a no deal Brexit look less extreme.
> @kinabalu said: > Even among 18 -24 year olds, TBP scores 20%. > > Gosh if you are there at 21 and one believes the tendency is to become more reactionary with age the mind boggles at where you will likely end up at 65. Certainly not a member of the Liberal Democrats.
Another false assumption? At that age a fair few voters will have anarchist temptations that might lead them to vote for the grit in politics' vaseline, which a decade later they have left behind for a calmer time with the LibDems.
> > > Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The royal we, I assume?
>
> >
>
> > Where is your evidence to the contrary?
>
>
>
> That the deal involves staying in the EU for an additional period, and a possibility of a permanent customs union/single market membership if no other deal is negotiated. Sounds pretty soft to me.
>
> May is not proposing membership of the single market or a customs union ergo she is not proposing a soft Brexit.
That's different from the deal though, isn't it?
If people vote Conservative they are backing the PM’s WA line, not some possibility that may fall within the bounds of the PS.
> @Streeter said: > Mr. Streeter, the deal involves entering a backstop that is permanent unless the EU agrees we can end it. That's a 'hard' departure in the same way the Battle of Tigranocerta was a glorious day in Armenian history. > > If you disagree, then fine, but pretending your opinion is a fact or a consensus position is nonsense. > > As I said this morning, and you offered nothing of substance in reply, is that when the term ‘soft Brexit’ was coined it clearly meant SM + CU + FOM = Norway. > > To now pretend that May’s deal is a soft Brexit is another Leavers’ lie, designed to make a no deal Brexit look less extreme.
And two of the three elements are part of May's deal. It's only FOM which won't happen in the backstop (at least as I understand it).
You say that as if you think it is mathematically true, but I don't believe that it is. Say, for example that in London the LDs, CUK and Greens all came in around the 9% level - it's quite probable they'd all come away with one seat each, whereas with 27% they would most likely get just two.
I originally added "I think", but on reflection it is mathematically true. If each of three parties with 9% get one seat, then (assuming nothing else changes) a combined party with 27% must get 3, as their rankings for d'Hondt purposes are 27%, 13.5% and 9% - and we already know a standalone party with 9% will get in in this scenario.
> > Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal.
>
> >
>
> > We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit.
>
>
>
> The royal we, I assume?
>
> Where is your evidence to the contrary?
That the deal involves staying in the EU for an additional period, and a possibility of a permanent customs union/single market membership if no other deal is negotiated. Sounds pretty soft to me.
As someone who is based in the US and therefore will not be directly impacted by Brexit, I can only assume you want it as hard and pure as possible. The ideologically pure American cousin of Archer Australia.
> @_Anazina_ said: > > @Streeter said: > > > > @Streeter said: > > > > > > > Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit. > > > > > > > > > > > > The royal we, I assume? > > > > > > Where is your evidence to the contrary? > > > > That the deal involves staying in the EU for an additional period, and a possibility of a permanent customs union/single market membership if no other deal is negotiated. Sounds pretty soft to me. > > As someone who is based in the US and therefore will not be directly impacted by Brexit, I can only assume you want it as hard and pure as possible. The ideologically pure American cousin of Archer Australia.
Na, I'm content with May's deal, as I've said before.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > The problem with the hard/soft distinction is that I understood the difference to be roughly whether the relationship was close enough to allow for freedom of movement (soft) or not (hard), but May's Deal is pretty explicitly the softest possible without freedom of movement. > > So I definitely see it as hard Brexit, but also not surprising that it's not hard enough for many.
A "blind Brexit" is the closest description - since the WA it allows for quite a range of possible directions after the transition period (it is May's failing as a politician that she hasn't been able to sell this to her various factions). It doesn't commit us to being within either the CU or the SM but, since the PD is simply aspirational, doesn't rule either out.
> Mr. Streeter, the deal involves entering a backstop that is permanent unless the EU agrees we can end it. That's a 'hard' departure in the same way the Battle of Tigranocerta was a glorious day in Armenian history.
>
> If you disagree, then fine, but pretending your opinion is a fact or a consensus position is nonsense.
>
> As I said this morning, and you offered nothing of substance in reply, is that when the term ‘soft Brexit’ was coined it clearly meant SM + CU + FOM = Norway.
>
> To now pretend that May’s deal is a soft Brexit is another Leavers’ lie, designed to make a no deal Brexit look less extreme.
And two of the three elements are part of May's deal. It's only FOM which won't happen in the backstop (at least as I understand it).
So it’s not a soft Brexit then, is it? Potentially 2/3 of a thing is not a thing.
> @Streeter said: > > @Streeter said: > > > Mr. Streeter, the deal involves entering a backstop that is permanent unless the EU agrees we can end it. That's a 'hard' departure in the same way the Battle of Tigranocerta was a glorious day in Armenian history. > > > > > > If you disagree, then fine, but pretending your opinion is a fact or a consensus position is nonsense. > > > > > > As I said this morning, and you offered nothing of substance in reply, is that when the term ‘soft Brexit’ was coined it clearly meant SM + CU + FOM = Norway. > > > > > > To now pretend that May’s deal is a soft Brexit is another Leavers’ lie, designed to make a no deal Brexit look less extreme. > > > > And two of the three elements are part of May's deal. It's only FOM which won't happen in the backstop (at least as I understand it). > > So it’s not a soft Brexit then, is it? Potentially 2/3 of a thing is not a thing.
No, it's not the softest brexit. But that wasn't the claim.
> @IanB2 said: > > @Tissue_Price said: > > What my analysis below means for the Remain parties is that they may not be as badly off as has been assumed, at least in the larger regions, provided that they can all poll at 9% or above, which currently looks difficult only for CUK. Indeed it would be theoretically possible for all of them to come in at the overrepresented bands and do better separately than together. > > > > > > > > The catch of course is that some of the regions are a lot smaller and hence the vote share hurdles very much higher. > > > > You'll always do at least as well with complete pooling of the vote. > > > > The catch is that you won't get complete pooling - going from two parties on 11% to {one on 16% and one on 6%} is not a good trade. Which is why Gina Miller's vote-LibDem website is tendentious. > > > > Trying to get complete pooling by standing a Remain Alliance would have been much better, but even then you may lose voters to abstention or independents etc. You might of course attract more voters from elsewhere. > > You say that as if you think it is mathematically true, but I don't believe that it is. Say, for example that in London the LDs, CUK and Greens all came in around the 9% level - it's quite probable they'd all come away with one seat each, whereas with 27% they would most likely get just two.
But then you have places like the North East where a Remain candidate might with 27% get a seat but without it all the votes are wasted and could gift Brexit a second seat.
It's why I've voted Labour as up here it's really a 2 horse race...
"On average, less than three in ten (28%) of those who voted Remain now say they will vote Labour – a drop of as much as 13 points in little more than a fortnight."
The problem with D'Hondt as used in UK EU elections boils down to the reason Blair selected it in 1999. It does not allow excluded votes to be re-distributed. Really there is no excuse for that and that is what is going to hit the left hard this year. I assume it was the intention that it would hit the NF and far right originally by effectively casting their votes aside.
It is simply preposterous to have the North East with only three seats. There you can vote Labour or TBP - there are no alternatives.
I don't quite agree with Nick Palmer, I think the effectiveness trigger is really 1/root 2*n - so for the North East that is over 20% !!!
Even where there are 8 seats, the NW that is over 8%
On a different issue I suspect the LD vote is being inflated by non-voters reporting the intention so to vote. Unlikely ? Remember 2010 and the Cleggasm where they were bound to get over 80 seats.
> > Mr. Streeter, the deal involves entering a backstop that is permanent unless the EU agrees we can end it. That's a 'hard' departure in the same way the Battle of Tigranocerta was a glorious day in Armenian history.
>
> >
>
> > If you disagree, then fine, but pretending your opinion is a fact or a consensus position is nonsense.
>
> >
>
> > As I said this morning, and you offered nothing of substance in reply, is that when the term ‘soft Brexit’ was coined it clearly meant SM + CU + FOM = Norway.
>
> >
>
> > To now pretend that May’s deal is a soft Brexit is another Leavers’ lie, designed to make a no deal Brexit look less extreme.
>
>
>
> And two of the three elements are part of May's deal. It's only FOM which won't happen in the backstop (at least as I understand it).
>
> So it’s not a soft Brexit then, is it? Potentially 2/3 of a thing is not a thing.
No, it's not the softest brexit. But that wasn't the claim.
Oh I see you’re now pretending the superlative is the same as the simple adjective.
It's why I've voted Labour as up here it's really a 2 horse race...
Well that makes sense too: your aim is to minimise one result rather than (try to) maximise another, which would likely end up with 0 in spite of your efforts. Since BP are more-or-less nailed on for one seat the important thing for you is to make sure someone beats them.
> @Tissue_Price said: > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft. > > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May.
Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats.
If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense.
> @Streeter said: > Oh I see you’re now pretending the superlative is the same as the simple adjective. > > Your figleaf is wilting.
Just saying that there is a continuum of Brexit deals. If it fulfills two of the three criteria for the softest possible Brexit (i.e. Norway), then it is on the soft side of the spectrum.
I suppose Nigel might want to debate Heidi one-on-one to help dilute the Remain forces. But I can't see the Lib Dems and Greens standing for it. ChUK are looking increasingly desperate.
> May is not proposing membership of the single market or a customs union ergo she is not proposing a soft Brexit.
This is correct. The May Deal (should it prove to be negotiable) cannot be considered a Soft Brexit.
Although the bit in brackets is 'doing some heavy lifting', to use a phrase that I've seen a few times and have been seeking an opportunity to try out.
That will worry him and his spin doctors... how to not come across like the Trump like misogynist he most probably is. My guess is he will find an excuse to decline, but then that might hurt his ego. Good move by Heidi Allen at last!
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @williamglenn said: > > https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1127969177178910722 > > That will worry him and his spin doctors... how to not come across like the Trump like misogynist he most probably is. My guess is he will find an excuse to decline, but then that might hurt his ego. Good move by Heidi Allen at last!
Yes, good move. Ch UK are at the bottom of the polls and Farage is at the top. She has nothing to lose and he has a lot to lose.
> @NickPalmer said: > > @Tissue_Price said: > > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft. > > > > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May. > > Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats. > > If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense.
If BP get 35% and everyone else 65% then it will show that 65% oppose a hard Brexit surely? 35% is not so far away from the numbers favouring no deal in recent polling.
> May is not proposing membership of the single market or a customs union ergo she is not proposing a soft Brexit.
This is correct. The May Deal (should it prove to be negotiable) cannot be considered a Soft Brexit.
Although the bit in brackets is 'doing some heavy lifting', to use a phrase that I've seen a few times and have been seeking an opportunity to try out.
> @NickPalmer said: > > @Tissue_Price said: > > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft. > > > > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May. > > Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats. > > If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense.
Desperate stuff Mr Palmer. Labour's very own Project Fear in action. Your message is: Vote for Mr. Thicky's particularly brand of Brexit, or you might get a worse version. Not sure it will wash with many remain inclined voters.
> @NickPalmer said: > > @Tissue_Price said: > > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft. > > > > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May. > > Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats. > > If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense.
People and broadcasters are capable of adding up the percentages. LibDem + Green + Ch UK + SNP/Plaid will be seen as Remain. Brexit + Tory will be seen as Leave. Labour will be 'Don't Know'.
Just filled in my postal vote, and noticed that some small parties (English Democrats, UK EU Party) are only running one or two people in my region. That makes sense, but does anyone know what happens if they somehow get more MEPs than they have candidates? I assume the MEP is simply 'lost' to the next party with enough people, is that right?
> @Tissue_Price said: > People and broadcasters are capable of adding up the percentages. > > LibDem + Green + Ch UK + SNP/Plaid will be seen as Remain. > > Brexit + Tory will be seen as Leave. > > Labour will be 'Don't Know'. > > True, but the headlines will be about winning as well. Especially since neither of the coalitions you describe look likely to get 50%.
The headlines will depend on the views of the particular paper. Bear in mind that the hammering the Tories got in the locals was interpreted as 'Get on With Brexit' by some, when in fact it was the opposite.
@Quincel, yes. It's more likely to be a [still theoretical!] problem if somehow one of them got elected and then stood down, and then others didn't want to take up the spot.
> @logical_song said: > > @NickPalmer said: > > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft. > > > > > > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May. > > > > Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats. > > > > If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense. > > People and broadcasters are capable of adding up the percentages. > LibDem + Green + Ch UK + SNP/Plaid will be seen as Remain. > Brexit + Tory will be seen as Leave. > Labour will be 'Don't Know'.
I am note sure you can say the Tory vote will necessarily be leave. Leave fanatics now have a place to lend their vote. There will be Tories like me who lend their votes to the LibDems or ChUk, but there are a range of opinions in what remains of the Tory loyalists. Many of those will be elderly, so one can expect a majority for leave, but it certainly isn't all leave's way at all.
> That will worry him and his spin doctors... how to not come across like the Trump like misogynist he most probably is. My guess is he will find an excuse to decline, but then that might hurt his ego. Good move by Heidi Allen at last!
Yes, good move. Ch UK are at the bottom of the polls and Farage is at the top. She has nothing to lose and he has a lot to lose.
All he has to do is quote her own words back at her
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @logical_song said: > > > @NickPalmer said: > > > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft. > > > > > > > > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May. > > > > > > Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats. > > > > > > If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense. > > > > People and broadcasters are capable of adding up the percentages. > > LibDem + Green + Ch UK + SNP/Plaid will be seen as Remain. > > Brexit + Tory will be seen as Leave. > > Labour will be 'Don't Know'. > > I am note sure you can say the Tory vote will necessarily be leave. Leave fanatics now have a place to lend their vote. There will be Tories like me who lend their votes to the LibDems or ChUk, but there are a range of opinions in what remains of the Tory loyalists. Many of those will be elderly, so one can expect a majority for leave, but it certainly isn't all leave's way at all.
I'm sure you're right. Plus you can also assume that most Labour voters will be Remain. However, the only way that people can cast a vote that can be unequivocally assigned in the Euros is via Farage or LibDem/Green/ChUK.
> @Tissue_Price said: > @Quincel, yes. It's more likely to be a [still theoretical!] problem if somehow one of them got elected and then stood down, and then others didn't want to take up the spot.
Cheers. Wonder if it's ever happened in any D'Hondt election? I don't have the time to check.
Well I do, but I want to pretend I have better things to do.
There are many words to quote at Farage that he has said, and some he is alleged to have said and has only half heartedly denied. There is much ammunition to show him up for the angry unpleasant and egotistical man he is. A woman will be best to expose this. Friend of misogynist Trump, admirer of despotic Putin, sympathetic visitor of alleged rapist Julian Assange. And lots lots more.
> That will worry him and his spin doctors... how to not come across like the Trump like misogynist he most probably is. My guess is he will find an excuse to decline, but then that might hurt his ego. Good move by Heidi Allen at last!
Yes, good move. Ch UK are at the bottom of the polls and Farage is at the top. She has nothing to lose and he has a lot to lose.
All he has to do is quote her own words back at her
There are many words to quote at Farage that he has said, and some he is alleged to have said and has only half heartedly denied. There is much ammunition to show him up for the angry unpleasant and egotistical man he is. A woman will be best to expose this. Friend of misogynist Trump, admirer of despotic Putin, sympathetic visitor of alleged rapist Julian Assange. And lots lots more.
That trick has been tried endlessly, as recently as yesterday, and never works. Votes cast against Farage by people that really, really, really hate him are still only counted once
..and he is a bully and his aids know it. He would come out of it very badly. I hope it does happen, but he will be, in the words of Mrs T, frit. It would be the only reason I would ever watch the narcissistic little fascist.
That is fascinating, Ian's breakdown of hot and cold spots in the spread of voting percentiles for London under D'Hondt. And the coldest of the cold is 8%. You simply must not poll that. Breaking upwards from that to 9% moves you from unlikely to win a seat to unlikely to NOT win a seat. So, effectively, the extra 1% is very likely to win you THE seat, expressed in the singular since 1 seat is the most that such a party can expect. This dynamic is rather like FPTP in a tight marginal where you beat the party in 2nd place by 1% and it gives you the whole of the seat. Given that the electorate who live in these marginals are deemed to have the votes which really do count, i.e. it is a desirable situation from the viewpoint of the individual voter, perhaps it follows that in mimicking this aspect of FPTP, the D'Hondt system is a strong one.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @logical_song said: > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1127968128992813056 > > > > > > Given we vote a week on Thursday I doubt there's time to get a debate sorted out (venues, TV coverage etc) > > > > > > Not happening. > > > > ... mainly because Farage won't want it. > > ..and he is a bully and his aids know it. He would come out of it very badly. I hope it does happen, but he will be, in the words of Mrs T, frit. It would be the only reason I would ever watch the narcissistic little fascist.
Why would leader of a party on 30% want to give publicity to leader of a party on 3%?
> > > Given we vote a week on Thursday I doubt there's time to get a debate sorted out (venues, TV coverage etc)
> > >
> > > Not happening.
> >
> > ... mainly because Farage won't want it.
>
> ..and he is a bully and his aids know it. He would come out of it very badly. I hope it does happen, but he will be, in the words of Mrs T, frit. It would be the only reason I would ever watch the narcissistic little fascist.
Why would leader of a party on 30% want to give publicity to leader of a party on 3%?
If it is anything like past elections, the other parties will demand to be there too, not least Batten, leader of the incumbents!
> @isam said: > > > > > If the Brexit shambles hasn’t changed your mind, you do not have much of a mind to change. > > At least the insults haven't changed from 2016!!
In Brexitland Utopia, no one is allowed to change their mind, unless it is El Duce. The leader of the Faragist Party changed his mind on immigration recently. Apparently it is no longer a big issue, because he says so. Norway model was once trumped by El Duce as a good alternative to our existing membership of the EU. He changed his mind, but this was the will-o-the-people, as El Duce IS the will-o-the-people. Then he shot his cat.
> @Quincel, yes. It's more likely to be a [still theoretical!] problem if somehow one of them got elected and then stood down, and then others didn't want to take up the spot.
Cheers. Wonder if it's ever happened in any D'Hondt election? I don't have the time to check.
Well I do, but I want to pretend I have better things to do.
It took some finding, and this is technically an independent (i.e. a list of one):
There are many words to quote at Farage that he has said, and some he is alleged to have said and has only half heartedly denied. There is much ammunition to show him up for the angry unpleasant and egotistical man he is. A woman will be best to expose this. Friend of misogynist Trump, admirer of despotic Putin, sympathetic visitor of alleged rapist Julian Assange. And lots lots more.
That trick has been tried endlessly, as recently as yesterday, and never works. Votes cast against Farage by people that really, really, really hate him are still only counted once
Farage is a bully and a chicken. No way the odious clown will agree to the challenge.
There are many words to quote at Farage that he has said, and some he is alleged to have said and has only half heartedly denied. There is much ammunition to show him up for the angry unpleasant and egotistical man he is. A woman will be best to expose this. Friend of misogynist Trump, admirer of despotic Putin, sympathetic visitor of alleged rapist Julian Assange. And lots lots more.
That trick has been tried endlessly, as recently as yesterday, and never works. Votes cast against Farage by people that really, really, really hate him are still only counted once
Farage is a bully and a chicken. No way the odious clown will agree to the challenge.
There are many words to quote at Farage that he has said, and some he is alleged to have said and has only half heartedly denied. There is much ammunition to show him up for the angry unpleasant and egotistical man he is. A woman will be best to expose this. Friend of misogynist Trump, admirer of despotic Putin, sympathetic visitor of alleged rapist Julian Assange. And lots lots more.
That trick has been tried endlessly, as recently as yesterday, and never works. Votes cast against Farage by people that really, really, really hate him are still only counted once
Farage is a bully and a chicken. No way the odious clown will agree to the challenge.
He'll probably say yes. (a) it won't happen, given timescales and other parties to consider; (b) Farage's message is very simple and he's used to making it in hostile conditions; (c) the example of Mrs May ducking the debates in 2017 is a reminder to leaders that the conventional wisdom isn't always right.
Comments
A lot of 'strong leavers' - i.e. those whose first preference is WTO terms - would rather remain in the EU than leave on the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement. This has been a big issue with the WA all along: why back the deal when no-deal and remain are both superior options?
> Mr. Pulpstar, my understanding is the Yorkshire Party's raison d'etre is to carve England into pathetic little regional assemblies.
>
> One does not approve.
This lot are available on the East Midlands ballot (As The independent Network)
http://www.lincolnshireindependents.org.uk/independent-network-east-midlands
> I was interested in the D’Hondt discussion and thought I would do some modelling,
>
> I took a region like London with eight seats, assumed seven political parties, and split the vote randomly between them so that each party scored somewhere between 3-35% of the total vote. Using Excel I worked out the seats for each party, then replicated the exercise over and over to model a large number of outcomes.
>
> The results in terms of seats for vote share were are follows (percentage vote shares rounded to the nearest whole number, so “7%” really means 6.5-7.49%):
>
> 6% or less = no seats
> 7% = an eighth chance of a seat
> 8% = a quarter chance of a seat
> 9% = seven eights chance of a seat
> 10% = almost always one seat
> 11%-13% = one seat
> 14% = one seat, very occasionally two
> 15% = one seat, a twelfth chance of a second
> 16% = one seat, a quarter chance of a second
> 17% = one seat or two seats about half the time each
> 18% = two seats three quarters of the time, otherwise one
> 19%-26% = two seats
>
> At 27% and above there was a rising chance for a third seat, which became a certainty at about 33%.
>
> The critical zones where additional votes are most likely to “count” are therefore around 8-9% for winning the first seat, and 16-18% for winning the second, and 27-31% for the third. At all other ratings the number of seats was a given regardless of how other parties performed.
>
> I then looked at over- and under-representation, and interestingly the pattern was (roughly - I couldn’t be bothered to count up) as follows:
>
> Above 30% vote share a party is equally likely to be over or under represented
> Between 25-30% a party is mostly underrepresented
> Between 20-25% a party is mostly overrepresented
> Between 15-20% there is a mix of over or under representation
> Between 13-15% a party is mostly underrepresented
> Between 9-12% a party is mostly overrepresented
> At 8% there is a mix, and at 7% and below mostly underrepresentation.
>
> What this illustrates is that D’Hondt not so much favours the larger parties, as sometimes assumed, but has a series of “steps” or narrow vote share bands, for qualifying for the next seat, and these are obviously driven mathematically by the size of the region.
>
> In terms of tactical voting (in this London example), voters need to work out which parties are most likely to fall into the critical 8-9% and 16-18% bands, and choose the one of those that they prefer the most.
>
-------------
Other hobbies are available!
Seriously; well done, sir.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_and_the_Humber_(European_Parliament_constituency)
Seems not.
Edited extra bit: I do appreciate the suggestion, though. I'm unaccustomed to not having a good idea of which way I'll be casting my vote.
The catch of course is that some of the regions are a lot smaller and hence the vote share hurdles very much higher.
As it is I will be considering both the new leader and my membership card very closely once May does go (although today I voted for my association to vote against the vote of no confidence in her as brought by the National Conservative Convention).
> @IanB2 - thanks. Very interesting.
55 minutes well spent, I think.
> I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
>
> A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May.
>
> Well I have toyed with voting LD to remind the Cons (as per @blueblue ) that I am very much against the bonkers wing of the party. How do I know that my Cons vote, if I cast it, won't be interpreted by Baker, Francois and gang that they should keep going and that "one more push" will see them triumph?
>
> As it is I will be considering both the new leader and my membership card very closely once May does go (although today I voted for my association to vote against the vote of no confidence in her as brought by the National Conservative Convention).
I predict that the biggest false assumption made by pundits and commentators will be to lump the Tory EU votes into a “Leaver” box when the reality is that the residual Tories will mostly be remainers.
The catch is that you won't get complete pooling - going from two parties on 11% to {one on 16% and one on 6%} is not a good trade. Which is why Gina Miller's vote-LibDem website is tendentious.
Trying to get complete pooling by standing a Remain Alliance would have been much better, but even then you may lose voters to abstention or independents etc. You might of course attract more voters from elsewhere.
> > @Dadge said:
> > Having lent my vote to Labour for a couple of years, at GE level at least, I'm considering my options. While the Tories are in disarray, I'm concerned now less with "keep the Tories out" than with "get PR in". Is Farage still in favour of PR? If so, I'd seriously consider voting for him tactically to defeat a Labour candidate. The ends justify the means. Or do they?
>
> Farage may well still be in favour of PR, but the only way you will get PR is by electing MPs who are in favour of PR, so probably your best bet at the next GE is the most likely to win where you are of LibDem, Green, SNP, Plaid possibly even Tory or Labour depending on the candidate.
> As regards the Euros, it doesn't really matter, maybe not Labour or Tory,
If Brexit are polling above LD and Greens for Westminster elections, there's going to be a lot of seats where they're the "best bet".
> > @TOPPING said:
> > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
> >
> > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May.
> >
> > Well I have toyed with voting LD to remind the Cons (as per @blueblue ) that I am very much against the bonkers wing of the party. How do I know that my Cons vote, if I cast it, won't be interpreted by Baker, Francois and gang that they should keep going and that "one more push" will see them triumph?
> >
> > As it is I will be considering both the new leader and my membership card very closely once May does go (although today I voted for my association to vote against the vote of no confidence in her as brought by the National Conservative Convention).
>
> I predict that the biggest false assumption made by pundits and commentators will be to lump the Tory EU votes into a “Leaver” box when the reality is that the residual Tories will mostly be remainers.
The residual Tories will be those backing May's Shit Deal.
> > @logical_song said:
> > > @Dadge said:
> > > Having lent my vote to Labour for a couple of years, at GE level at least, I'm considering my options. While the Tories are in disarray, I'm concerned now less with "keep the Tories out" than with "get PR in". Is Farage still in favour of PR? If so, I'd seriously consider voting for him tactically to defeat a Labour candidate. The ends justify the means. Or do they?
> >
> > Farage may well still be in favour of PR, but the only way you will get PR is by electing MPs who are in favour of PR, so probably your best bet at the next GE is the most likely to win where you are of LibDem, Green, SNP, Plaid possibly even Tory or Labour depending on the candidate.
> > As regards the Euros, it doesn't really matter, maybe not Labour or Tory,
>
> If Brexit are polling above LD and Greens for Westminster elections, there's going to be a lot of seats where they're the "best bet".
North East springs to mind.
> The residual Tories will be those backing May's Shit Deal.
>
> If the past three years have proved nothing else it is that May's deal is not shit.
It is in the sense that it is Brexit. What Brexiteers struggle with is that the two things are synonymous.
> > @blueblue said:
> > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
>
> I too don't wish for a no deal Brexit, but I also want the referendum result to be delivered, thus I shall vote for The Brexit Party in the hope it will focus minds and move us away from the nonsense of a People's Vote.
So you'll vote for the party that wants a No Deal Brexit, but you don't wish for a no deal Brexit. Okaaaay.
> > @Brom said:
> > > @blueblue said:
> > > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
> >
> > I too don't wish for a no deal Brexit, but I also want the referendum result to be delivered, thus I shall vote for The Brexit Party in the hope it will focus minds and move us away from the nonsense of a People's Vote.
>
> So you'll vote for the party that wants a No Deal Brexit, but you don't wish for a no deal Brexit. Okaaaay.
It is a massive problem.
As a Leaver I can rule out most of the protest parties in the Euros.
> Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal.
>
> We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit.
The royal we, I assume?
> > @Streeter said:
>
> > Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal.
>
> >
>
> > We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit.
>
>
>
> The royal we, I assume?
>
> Where is your evidence to the contrary?
That the deal involves staying in the EU for an additional period, and a possibility of a permanent customs union/single market membership if no other deal is negotiated. Sounds pretty soft to me.
> > @Dadge said:
> > > @logical_song said:
> > > > @Dadge said:
> > > > Having lent my vote to Labour for a couple of years, at GE level at least, I'm considering my options. While the Tories are in disarray, I'm concerned now less with "keep the Tories out" than with "get PR in". Is Farage still in favour of PR? If so, I'd seriously consider voting for him tactically to defeat a Labour candidate. The ends justify the means. Or do they?
> > >
> > > Farage may well still be in favour of PR, but the only way you will get PR is by electing MPs who are in favour of PR, so probably your best bet at the next GE is the most likely to win where you are of LibDem, Green, SNP, Plaid possibly even Tory or Labour depending on the candidate.
> > > As regards the Euros, it doesn't really matter, maybe not Labour or Tory,
> >
> > If Brexit are polling above LD and Greens for Westminster elections, there's going to be a lot of seats where they're the "best bet".
>
> North East springs to mind.
Yes, the dilemma at the next GE might very well be whether centrist PR supporters give Farage a one-time go to see if he can help deliver a fairer voting system that give the smaller centre parties a better crack going forward.
> > @Streeter said:
>
> > > @Streeter said:
>
> >
>
> > > Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The royal we, I assume?
>
> >
>
> > Where is your evidence to the contrary?
>
>
>
> That the deal involves staying in the EU for an additional period, and a possibility of a permanent customs union/single market membership if no other deal is negotiated. Sounds pretty soft to me.
>
> May is not proposing membership of the single market or a customs union ergo she is not proposing a soft Brexit.
That's different from the deal though, isn't it?
If you disagree, then fine, but pretending your opinion is a fact or a consensus position is nonsense.
So I definitely see it as hard Brexit, but also not surprising that it's not hard enough for many.
> What my analysis below means for the Remain parties is that they may not be as badly off as has been assumed, at least in the larger regions, provided that they can all poll at 9% or above, which currently looks difficult only for CUK. Indeed it would be theoretically possible for all of them to come in at the overrepresented bands and do better separately than together.
>
>
>
> The catch of course is that some of the regions are a lot smaller and hence the vote share hurdles very much higher.
>
> You'll always do at least as well with complete pooling of the vote.
>
> The catch is that you won't get complete pooling - going from two parties on 11% to {one on 16% and one on 6%} is not a good trade. Which is why Gina Miller's vote-LibDem website is tendentious.
>
> Trying to get complete pooling by standing a Remain Alliance would have been much better, but even then you may lose voters to abstention or independents etc. You might of course attract more voters from elsewhere.
You say that as if you think it is mathematically true, but I don't believe that it is. Say, for example that in London the LDs, CUK and Greens all came in around the 9% level - it's quite probable they'd all come away with one seat each, whereas with 27% they would most likely get just two.
> I was interested in the D’Hondt discussion and thought I would do some modelling,
>
> I took a region like London with eight seats, assumed seven political parties, and split the vote randomly between them so that each party scored somewhere between 3-35% of the total vote. Using Excel I worked out the seats for each party, then replicated the exercise over and over to model a large number of outcomes.
>
> The results in terms of seats for vote share were are follows (percentage vote shares rounded to the nearest whole number, so “7%” really means 6.5-7.49%):
>
> 6% or less = no seats
> 7% = an eighth chance of a seat
> 8% = a quarter chance of a seat
> 9% = seven eights chance of a seat
> 10% = almost always one seat
> 11%-13% = one seat
> 14% = one seat, very occasionally two
> 15% = one seat, a twelfth chance of a second
> 16% = one seat, a quarter chance of a second
> 17% = one seat or two seats about half the time each
> 18% = two seats three quarters of the time, otherwise one
> 19%-26% = two seats
>
> At 27% and above there was a rising chance for a third seat, which became a certainty at about 33%.
>
> The critical zones where additional votes are most likely to “count” are therefore around 8-9% for winning the first seat, and 16-18% for winning the second, and 27-31% for the third. At all other ratings the number of seats was a given regardless of how other parties performed.
>
> I then looked at over- and under-representation, and interestingly the pattern was (roughly - I couldn’t be bothered to count up) as follows:
>
> Above 30% vote share a party is equally likely to be over or under represented
> Between 25-30% a party is mostly underrepresented
> Between 20-25% a party is mostly overrepresented
> Between 15-20% there is a mix of over or under representation
> Between 13-15% a party is mostly underrepresented
> Between 9-12% a party is mostly overrepresented
> At 8% there is a mix, and at 7% and below mostly underrepresentation.
>
> What this illustrates is that D’Hondt not so much favours the larger parties, as sometimes assumed, but has a series of “steps” or narrow vote share bands, for qualifying for the next seat, and these are obviously driven mathematically by the size of the region.
>
> In terms of tactical voting (in this London example), voters need to work out which parties are most likely to fall into the critical 8-9% and 16-18% bands, and choose the one of those that they prefer the most.
>
Thanks Ian. That is a fascinating and extremely useful guide.
I agonised which box to put a cross in.
Now I am considering whether to even post it.
If i think this, Lab. is in for a very poor result and TBP a very good one.
Last time i was this conflicted it was post Iraq.
Problem is the worse Lab. does the more the pressure the Chicken Coupers will put on to blame Jezza.
Im off to post box.
To now pretend that May’s deal is a soft Brexit is another Leavers’ lie, designed to make a no deal Brexit look less extreme.
> Even among 18 -24 year olds, TBP scores 20%.
>
> Gosh if you are there at 21 and one believes the tendency is to become more reactionary with age the mind boggles at where you will likely end up at 65. Certainly not a member of the Liberal Democrats.
Another false assumption? At that age a fair few voters will have anarchist temptations that might lead them to vote for the grit in politics' vaseline, which a decade later they have left behind for a calmer time with the LibDems.
Disingenuous as always.
> Mr. Streeter, the deal involves entering a backstop that is permanent unless the EU agrees we can end it. That's a 'hard' departure in the same way the Battle of Tigranocerta was a glorious day in Armenian history.
>
> If you disagree, then fine, but pretending your opinion is a fact or a consensus position is nonsense.
>
> As I said this morning, and you offered nothing of substance in reply, is that when the term ‘soft Brexit’ was coined it clearly meant SM + CU + FOM = Norway.
>
> To now pretend that May’s deal is a soft Brexit is another Leavers’ lie, designed to make a no deal Brexit look less extreme.
And two of the three elements are part of May's deal. It's only FOM which won't happen in the backstop (at least as I understand it).
> > @Streeter said:
>
> > > @Streeter said:
>
> >
>
> > > Mr. Topping, I'd suggest that hardliners against the EU are likely to back BP, whereas those who want to depart on a softer note will opt for the Conservatives as that's effectively backing May's deal.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > We established this morning that May’s deal is not a soft Brexit.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The royal we, I assume?
>
> >
>
> > Where is your evidence to the contrary?
>
>
>
> That the deal involves staying in the EU for an additional period, and a possibility of a permanent customs union/single market membership if no other deal is negotiated. Sounds pretty soft to me.
>
> As someone who is based in the US and therefore will not be directly impacted by Brexit, I can only assume you want it as hard and pure as possible. The ideologically pure American cousin of Archer Australia.
Na, I'm content with May's deal, as I've said before.
> The problem with the hard/soft distinction is that I understood the difference to be roughly whether the relationship was close enough to allow for freedom of movement (soft) or not (hard), but May's Deal is pretty explicitly the softest possible without freedom of movement.
>
> So I definitely see it as hard Brexit, but also not surprising that it's not hard enough for many.
A "blind Brexit" is the closest description - since the WA it allows for quite a range of possible directions after the transition period (it is May's failing as a politician that she hasn't been able to sell this to her various factions). It doesn't commit us to being within either the CU or the SM but, since the PD is simply aspirational, doesn't rule either out.
Still, makes a pleasant change from xenophobe/traitor.
> > @Streeter said:
>
> > Mr. Streeter, the deal involves entering a backstop that is permanent unless the EU agrees we can end it. That's a 'hard' departure in the same way the Battle of Tigranocerta was a glorious day in Armenian history.
>
> >
>
> > If you disagree, then fine, but pretending your opinion is a fact or a consensus position is nonsense.
>
> >
>
> > As I said this morning, and you offered nothing of substance in reply, is that when the term ‘soft Brexit’ was coined it clearly meant SM + CU + FOM = Norway.
>
> >
>
> > To now pretend that May’s deal is a soft Brexit is another Leavers’ lie, designed to make a no deal Brexit look less extreme.
>
>
>
> And two of the three elements are part of May's deal. It's only FOM which won't happen in the backstop (at least as I understand it).
>
> So it’s not a soft Brexit then, is it? Potentially 2/3 of a thing is not a thing.
No, it's not the softest brexit. But that wasn't the claim.
> > @Tissue_Price said:
> > What my analysis below means for the Remain parties is that they may not be as badly off as has been assumed, at least in the larger regions, provided that they can all poll at 9% or above, which currently looks difficult only for CUK. Indeed it would be theoretically possible for all of them to come in at the overrepresented bands and do better separately than together.
> >
> >
> >
> > The catch of course is that some of the regions are a lot smaller and hence the vote share hurdles very much higher.
> >
> > You'll always do at least as well with complete pooling of the vote.
> >
> > The catch is that you won't get complete pooling - going from two parties on 11% to {one on 16% and one on 6%} is not a good trade. Which is why Gina Miller's vote-LibDem website is tendentious.
> >
> > Trying to get complete pooling by standing a Remain Alliance would have been much better, but even then you may lose voters to abstention or independents etc. You might of course attract more voters from elsewhere.
>
> You say that as if you think it is mathematically true, but I don't believe that it is. Say, for example that in London the LDs, CUK and Greens all came in around the 9% level - it's quite probable they'd all come away with one seat each, whereas with 27% they would most likely get just two.
But then you have places like the North East where a Remain candidate might with 27% get a seat but without it all the votes are wasted and could gift Brexit a second seat.
It's why I've voted Labour as up here it's really a 2 horse race...
"On average, less than three in ten (28%) of those who voted Remain now say they will vote Labour – a drop of as much as 13 points in little more than a fortnight."
It is simply preposterous to have the North East with only three seats. There you can vote Labour or TBP - there are no alternatives.
I don't quite agree with Nick Palmer, I think the effectiveness trigger is really 1/root 2*n - so for the North East that is over 20% !!!
Even where there are 8 seats, the NW that is over 8%
On a different issue I suspect the LD vote is being inflated by non-voters reporting the intention so to vote. Unlikely ? Remember 2010 and the Cleggasm where they were bound to get over 80 seats.
Your figleaf is wilting.
> I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
>
> A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May.
Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats.
If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense.
> Oh I see you’re now pretending the superlative is the same as the simple adjective.
>
> Your figleaf is wilting.
Just saying that there is a continuum of Brexit deals. If it fulfills two of the three criteria for the softest possible Brexit (i.e. Norway), then it is on the soft side of the spectrum.
> May is not proposing membership of the single market or a customs union ergo she is not proposing a soft Brexit.
This is correct. The May Deal (should it prove to be negotiable) cannot be considered a Soft Brexit.
Although the bit in brackets is 'doing some heavy lifting', to use a phrase that I've seen a few times and have been seeking an opportunity to try out.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techandscience/15-million-year-old-fossil-reveals-skinks-had-crushing-jaw-rounded-teeth/ar-AABhkFU?ocid=spartanntp
> https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1127969177178910722
That will worry him and his spin doctors... how to not come across like the Trump like misogynist he most probably is. My guess is he will find an excuse to decline, but then that might hurt his ego. Good move by Heidi Allen at last!
> > @williamglenn said:
> > https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1127969177178910722
>
> That will worry him and his spin doctors... how to not come across like the Trump like misogynist he most probably is. My guess is he will find an excuse to decline, but then that might hurt his ego. Good move by Heidi Allen at last!
Yes, good move. Ch UK are at the bottom of the polls and Farage is at the top. She has nothing to lose and he has a lot to lose.
> > @Tissue_Price said:
> > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
> >
> > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May.
>
> Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats.
>
> If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense.
If BP get 35% and everyone else 65% then it will show that 65% oppose a hard Brexit surely? 35% is not so far away from the numbers favouring no deal in recent polling.
> > @Tissue_Price said:
> > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
> >
> > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May.
>
> Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats.
>
> If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense.
Desperate stuff Mr Palmer. Labour's very own Project Fear in action. Your message is: Vote for Mr. Thicky's particularly brand of Brexit, or you might get a worse version. Not sure it will wash with many remain inclined voters.
> > @Tissue_Price said:
> > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
> >
> > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May.
>
> Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats.
>
> If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense.
People and broadcasters are capable of adding up the percentages.
LibDem + Green + Ch UK + SNP/Plaid will be seen as Remain.
Brexit + Tory will be seen as Leave.
Labour will be 'Don't Know'.
> People and broadcasters are capable of adding up the percentages.
>
> LibDem + Green + Ch UK + SNP/Plaid will be seen as Remain.
>
> Brexit + Tory will be seen as Leave.
>
> Labour will be 'Don't Know'.
>
> True, but the headlines will be about winning as well. Especially since neither of the coalitions you describe look likely to get 50%.
The headlines will depend on the views of the particular paper. Bear in mind that the hammering the Tories got in the locals was interpreted as 'Get on With Brexit' by some, when in fact it was the opposite.
> > @NickPalmer said:
> > > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
> > >
> > > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May.
> >
> > Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats.
> >
> > If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense.
>
> People and broadcasters are capable of adding up the percentages.
> LibDem + Green + Ch UK + SNP/Plaid will be seen as Remain.
> Brexit + Tory will be seen as Leave.
> Labour will be 'Don't Know'.
I am note sure you can say the Tory vote will necessarily be leave. Leave fanatics now have a place to lend their vote. There will be Tories like me who lend their votes to the LibDems or ChUk, but there are a range of opinions in what remains of the Tory loyalists. Many of those will be elderly, so one can expect a majority for leave, but it certainly isn't all leave's way at all.
https://twitter.com/heidiallen75/status/858595621229535232
https://twitter.com/heidiallen75/status/1105785739613220866
> > @logical_song said:
> > > @NickPalmer said:
> > > > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
> > > >
> > > > A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May.
> > >
> > > Similarly, a big Brexit lead over Labour (who are still the likely 2nd place) will be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit in general and Farage in particular. Labour voters giving tactical support to smaller parties are taking a risk if they're motivated by wanting to back either Remain or a soft Brexit. If the result is something like Brexit 35 Labour 20 Con 10 LibDems 10 Greens 10 ChUK 5, others 10, it'll be seen as an endorsement of hard Brexit - the commentators just aren't going to spend time picking over the smaller party votes, especially if they miss out on seats.
> > >
> > > If on the other hand you favour Revoke and unless you can get that, you don't care if there's a hard Brexit, then voting LibDem makes sense. If you don't actually care about Brexit and merely want to oppose Corbyn, then ChUK makes sense.
> >
> > People and broadcasters are capable of adding up the percentages.
> > LibDem + Green + Ch UK + SNP/Plaid will be seen as Remain.
> > Brexit + Tory will be seen as Leave.
> > Labour will be 'Don't Know'.
>
> I am note sure you can say the Tory vote will necessarily be leave. Leave fanatics now have a place to lend their vote. There will be Tories like me who lend their votes to the LibDems or ChUk, but there are a range of opinions in what remains of the Tory loyalists. Many of those will be elderly, so one can expect a majority for leave, but it certainly isn't all leave's way at all.
I'm sure you're right. Plus you can also assume that most Labour voters will be Remain. However, the only way that people can cast a vote that can be unequivocally assigned in the Euros is via Farage or LibDem/Green/ChUK.
> @Quincel, yes. It's more likely to be a [still theoretical!] problem if somehow one of them got elected and then stood down, and then others didn't want to take up the spot.
Cheers. Wonder if it's ever happened in any D'Hondt election? I don't have the time to check.
Well I do, but I want to pretend I have better things to do.
> https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1127968128992813056
Given we vote a week on Thursday I doubt there's time to get a debate sorted out (venues, TV coverage etc)
Not happening.
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
>
> > > @williamglenn said:
>
> > > https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1127969177178910722
>
>
>
> >
>
> > That will worry him and his spin doctors... how to not come across like the Trump like misogynist he most probably is. My guess is he will find an excuse to decline, but then that might hurt his ego. Good move by Heidi Allen at last!
>
>
>
> Yes, good move. Ch UK are at the bottom of the polls and Farage is at the top. She has nothing to lose and he has a lot to lose.
>
> All he has to do is quote her own words back at her
>
> https://twitter.com/heidiallen75/status/858595621229535232
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/heidiallen75/status/1105785739613220866
There are many words to quote at Farage that he has said, and some he is alleged to have said and has only half heartedly denied. There is much ammunition to show him up for the angry unpleasant and egotistical man he is. A woman will be best to expose this. Friend of misogynist Trump, admirer of despotic Putin, sympathetic visitor of alleged rapist Julian Assange. And lots lots more.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1127968128992813056
>
> Given we vote a week on Thursday I doubt there's time to get a debate sorted out (venues, TV coverage etc)
>
> Not happening.
... mainly because Farage won't want it.
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
>
> > > @williamglenn said:
>
> > > https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1127969177178910722
>
>
>
> >
>
> > That will worry him and his spin doctors... how to not come across like the Trump like misogynist he most probably is. My guess is he will find an excuse to decline, but then that might hurt his ego. Good move by Heidi Allen at last!
>
>
>
> Yes, good move. Ch UK are at the bottom of the polls and Farage is at the top. She has nothing to lose and he has a lot to lose.
>
> All he has to do is quote her own words back at her
>
> https://twitter.com/heidiallen75/status/858595621229535232
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/heidiallen75/status/1105785739613220866
>
>
>
> That's why they're called "Change"!!!
If the Brexit shambles hasn’t changed your mind, you do not have much of a mind to change.
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1127968128992813056
> >
> > Given we vote a week on Thursday I doubt there's time to get a debate sorted out (venues, TV coverage etc)
> >
> > Not happening.
>
> ... mainly because Farage won't want it.
..and he is a bully and his aids know it. He would come out of it very badly. I hope it does happen, but he will be, in the words of Mrs T, frit. It would be the only reason I would ever watch the narcissistic little fascist.
> Thanks.
> > @logical_song said:
> > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > @Scott_P said:
> > > > https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1127968128992813056
> > >
> > > Given we vote a week on Thursday I doubt there's time to get a debate sorted out (venues, TV coverage etc)
> > >
> > > Not happening.
> >
> > ... mainly because Farage won't want it.
>
> ..and he is a bully and his aids know it. He would come out of it very badly. I hope it does happen, but he will be, in the words of Mrs T, frit. It would be the only reason I would ever watch the narcissistic little fascist.
Why would leader of a party on 30% want to give publicity to leader of a party on 3%?
> >
>
>
> If the Brexit shambles hasn’t changed your mind, you do not have much of a mind to change.
>
> At least the insults haven't changed from 2016!!
In Brexitland Utopia, no one is allowed to change their mind, unless it is El Duce. The leader of the Faragist Party changed his mind on immigration recently. Apparently it is no longer a big issue, because he says so. Norway model was once trumped by El Duce as a good alternative to our existing membership of the EU. He changed his mind, but this was the will-o-the-people, as El Duce IS the will-o-the-people. Then he shot his cat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_European_Parliament_election_in_Estonia
> Why would leader of a party on 30% want to give publicity to leader of a party on 3%?
Same reason he debated Clegg.
Frame the debate as between a strong horse and a weak horse. Between full Brexit and unconditional remain no matter what the price.
Damage Labour and Lib Dems by promoting CUK to Remainers to maximise Brexit's lead over second place.
Win the post-debate polling as LabCon loyalists can't bring themselves to say the defectors "won" and say "don't know".