Today I've learned that implementing a program of government without a majority of votes is no democracy. So that's almost everything that's been done by governments during the whole of my lifetime. Save perhaps the 5 years of the coalition government.
Oddly, though, the PM during those years is also getting a good kicking on here from some of the same people.
Just been out with a group of pensioners who are going to cancel their donations to RNLI because of the daily mail article. Well done daily mail you really should have thought it through before putting the whole operation at risk. Don’t know if the RNLI were wrong to spend 2% overseas but it’s going to hit their financial viability.
The Daily Mail know that nothing makes their readership angry quite like the thought of their money helping to stop brown kids from drowning.
Aka 'cockroaches', ™Katie Hopkins.
But by this short sighted desire for headlines they could actually ‘sink’ the whole operation
Do you think they give a shit? They want the headlines and to spread a bit more of their hate.
They clearly don’t but it really is short sighted. The twitter response is appalling. Reduce your donation by 2% and point out why but to stop donating because a small proportion goes into overseas projects does actually verge on the racist. It does raise some interesting points about who ‘owns’ a charity and controls its fund distribution.
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
Nah, having Revoked, next law is electoral reform, and the end of FPTP.
Neatly ignoring the fact that Con+UKIP was 49.4% in 2015 and Con+BXP is still polling around the 50% mark. An amount I presume would be higher if the establishment stitch up you propose was allowed to happen.
Just been out with a group of pensioners who are going to cancel their donations to RNLI because of the daily mail article. Well done daily mail you really should have thought it through before putting the whole operation at risk. Don’t know if the RNLI were wrong to spend 2% overseas but it’s going to hit their financial viability.
The Daily Mail know that nothing makes their readership angry quite like the thought of their money helping to stop brown kids from drowning.
Aka 'cockroaches', ™Katie Hopkins.
But by this short sighted desire for headlines they could actually ‘sink’ the whole operation
Do you think they give a shit? They want the headlines and to spread a bit more of their hate.
They clearly don’t but it really is short sighted. The twitter response is appalling. Reduce your donation by 2% and point out why but to stop donating because a small proportion goes into overseas projects does actually verge on the racist. It does raise some interesting points about who ‘owns’ a charity and controls its fund distribution.
3. Most important. It would remove the possibility of a government with 35% support implementing policy that is opposed by 65% - including a Faragist party crashing us out of the EU. That would need at least 50% support in a PR parliament.
At last, we're being honest.
Let's abuse the system to make sure leavers never get anywhere near power.
Let's overturn the result of a referendum in which over 50% of people voted to leave, using a mandate taken from just 35% of the population, then let's change the law to prevent anyone from ever doing the same thing again.
Just been out with a group of pensioners who are going to cancel their donations to RNLI because of the daily mail article. Well done daily mail you really should have thought it through before putting the whole operation at risk. Don’t know if the RNLI were wrong to spend 2% overseas but it’s going to hit their financial viability.
The Daily Mail know that nothing makes their readership angry quite like the thought of their money helping to stop brown kids from drowning.
Aka 'cockroaches', ™Katie Hopkins.
But by this short sighted desire for headlines they could actually ‘sink’ the whole operation
You seriously think this is because they haven't "thought it through"? It's an entirely calculated decision
To be honest, they're both dickheads and their rhetoric is as silly as the others.
It takes one to know one.
"It takes one to know one" is a ludicrously infantile expression and plainly not true (can only a criminal spot a criminal, or a liar spot a liar?)
Guy Verohofstadt is a towering giant compared with most UK politicians.
No, he's a foam-flecked ranting monomaniac.
Have you ever seen him give a speech on his precious European project? His arms flail about everywhere - as does his spittle - as he rants and raves with inflective zeal. He comes across as a Farage or Bill Cash (and then some) just from the exact opposite side of the argument. He also has a strange habit of referring to himself in the third person.
As a personality he's someone who's probably quite fun over a pint of Belgian lager, or racing cars down at the track. But, get him onto his political hobbyhorses, and everyone leaves the room muttering under their breath and shaking their heads; cringing and embarrassed.
I think the Lib Dems are thinking one step ahead. Revoke may seem 'extreme' now but if parliament never gets in a position where it can pass a deal, the argument will eventually be between revoke and no deal.
3. Most important. It would remove the possibility of a government with 35% support implementing policy that is opposed by 65% - including a Faragist party crashing us out of the EU. That would need at least 50% support in a PR parliament.
At last, we're being honest.
Let's abuse the system to make sure leavers never get anywhere near power.
Let's overturn the result of a referendum in which over 50% of people voted to leave, using a mandate taken from just 35% of the population, then let's change the law to prevent anyone from ever doing the same thing again.
IF the LibDems got a majority I hope they would implement PR asap for three reasons:
1. It is the right thing to do.
2. It has been LibDem policy forever and it would be extremely hypocritical to change it for party advantage.
3. Most important. It would remove the possibility of a government with 35% support implementing policy that is opposed by 65% - including a Faragist party crashing us out of the EU. That would need at least 50% support in a PR parliament.
In the meantime, the LibDems will play by the current FPTP rules including implementing policy on a majority obtained with a 35% vote share. That's what the other players do.
EDIT Snaps 9:13 9:16 9:21
Yes the irony has never been lost on LDs we will need to establish our won "elected dictatorship" as Lord Hailsham called it to effect change on the voting system and, as with Brexit, I hope it's clearly and unequivocally spelt out in the LD manifesto that if the Party wins a majority STV will be introduced for all elections..
I think it's been a good day for the Party - Revoke if we win a majority is a clear policy. The pro-No Dealers won't support us and if we can work with others to get a second vote on a meaningful WA which can be clearly communicated to the electorate rather than 585 pages of legalese, so much the better.
The point remains as it has since March 2017 - the EU have consistently said it is up to the UK to find solutions to the problems leaving the EU (which we chose to do) will cause. If we had spent some time doing that instead of worrying about the unity of the Conservative Party we might have got somewhere.
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
Nah, having Revoked, next law is electoral reform, and the end of FPTP.
Neatly ignoring the fact that Con+UKIP was 49.4% in 2015 and Con+BXP is still polling around the 50% mark. An amount I presume would be higher if the establishment stitch up you propose was allowed to happen.
Then you have nothing to fear from PR.
While I understand the merits of PR, one of the best things about FPTP is it drives people and parties towards the centre, because that's how you win. PR reduces the incentive to parties to reach out to their opponents in order to maximise their vote share and instead encourages alliances with minor fringe parties that will almost certainly be more extreme.
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
That's a one-man ego trip, not a party. Its chances of winning a majority are the same as the chances of Joe Root scoring a century at No. 3.
Anyone bemoaning the RNLI from helping abroad to stop people from drowning are to blunt soulless and should be ashamed .
Apparently I’m a communist agitator for suggesting that people should DTOR before leaping on the Mail band wagon I’m afraid there are very sad people out there who don’t look past the headlines.
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
Well of course that majority LD government would first Revoke A50 and then introduce PR to prevent anyone else winning a majority on less than 50% of the vote.
Sweet justice.
So no more Referendums on changing the voting system, huh?
Because they lost last time? I see a pattern emerging here.....
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
Nah, having Revoked, next law is electoral reform, and the end of FPTP.
Neatly ignoring the fact that Con+UKIP was 49.4% in 2015 and Con+BXP is still polling around the 50% mark. An amount I presume would be higher if the establishment stitch up you propose was allowed to happen.
Then you have nothing to fear from PR.
While I understand the merits of PR, one of the best things about FPTP is it drives people and parties towards the centre, because that's how you win. PR reduces the incentive to parties to reach out to their opponents in order to maximise their vote share and instead encourages alliances with minor fringe parties that will almost certainly be more extreme.
Hahahahaha! Have you looked at today's Conservative and Labour parties? (Not to mention the BXP!)
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
Nah, having Revoked, next law is electoral reform, and the end of FPTP.
Neatly ignoring the fact that Con+UKIP was 49.4% in 2015 and Con+BXP is still polling around the 50% mark. An amount I presume would be higher if the establishment stitch up you propose was allowed to happen.
Then you have nothing to fear from PR.
While I understand the merits of PR, one of the best things about FPTP is it drives people and parties towards the centre, because that's how you win. PR reduces the incentive to parties to reach out to their opponents in order to maximise their vote share and instead encourages alliances with minor fringe parties that will almost certainly be more extreme.
IF the LibDems got a majority I hope they would implement PR asap for three reasons:
1. It is the right thing to do.
2. It has been LibDem policy forever and it would be extremely hypocritical to change it for party advantage.
3. Most important. It would remove the possibility of a government with 35% support implementing policy that is opposed by 65% - including a Faragist party crashing us out of the EU. That would need at least 50% support in a PR parliament.
In the meantime, the LibDems will play by the current FPTP rules including implementing policy on a majority obtained with a 35% vote share. That's what the other players do.
EDIT Snaps 9:13 9:16 9:21
Yes the irony has never been lost on LDs we will need to establish our won "elected dictatorship" as Lord Hailsham called it to effect change on the voting system and, as with Brexit, I hope it's clearly and unequivocally spelt out in the LD manifesto that if the Party wins a majority STV will be introduced for all elections..
I think it's been a good day for the Party - Revoke if we win a majority is a clear policy. The pro-No Dealers won't support us and if we can work with others to get a second vote on a meaningful WA which can be clearly communicated to the electorate rather than 585 pages of legalese, so much the better.
The point remains as it has since March 2017 - the EU have consistently said it is up to the UK to find solutions to the problems leaving the EU (which we chose to do) will cause. If we had spent some time doing that instead of worrying about the unity of the Conservative Party we might have got somewhere.
A very complicated situation because the court could rule the prorogation was lawful in England and unlawful in Scotland .
The court will be desperate to avoid that situation because that would mean it would have to rule it unlawful for the whole UK.
They will try and come to a decision that can rule the same on both counts but of course that might not happen .
The Supreme Court is the ultimate bastion of the English privileged classes. It will never go against the government and the monarchy.
It did in the Gina Miller case ! And their decision won’t impact the monarchy , if they rule unlawful it will be on the governments heads not the Queen .
I have utmost respect for the SC , the judges probing of the QCs was outstanding in the GM case . The QCs were also excellent . I read daily the whole court proceedings , which was a very enlightening experience .
A very complicated situation because the court could rule the prorogation was lawful in England and unlawful in Scotland .
The court will be desperate to avoid that situation because that would mean it would have to rule it unlawful for the whole UK.
They will try and come to a decision that can rule the same on both counts but of course that might not happen .
The Supreme Court is the ultimate bastion of the English privileged classes. It will never go against the government and the monarchy.
It did in the Gina Miller case ! And their decision won’t impact the monarchy , if they rule unlawful it will be on the governments heads not the Queen .
I have utmost respect for the SC , the judges probing of the QCs was outstanding in the GM case . The QCs were also excellent . I read daily the whole court proceedings , which was a very enlightening experience .
Just been out with a group of pensioners who are going to cancel their donations to RNLI because of the daily mail article. Well done daily mail you really should have thought it through before putting the whole operation at risk. Don’t know if the RNLI were wrong to spend 2% overseas but it’s going to hit their financial viability.
The Daily Mail know that nothing makes their readership angry quite like the thought of their money helping to stop brown kids from drowning.
Aka 'cockroaches', ™Katie Hopkins.
But by this short sighted desire for headlines they could actually ‘sink’ the whole operation
Do you think they give a shit? They want the headlines and to spread a bit more of their hate.
They clearly don’t but it really is short sighted. The twitter response is appalling. Reduce your donation by 2% and point out why but to stop donating because a small proportion goes into overseas projects does actually verge on the racist. It does raise some interesting points about who ‘owns’ a charity and controls its fund distribution.
I heard somewhere that if you collect for Children in Need you have to assure a lot of people that all the money goes to proper UK children (it doesn't, actually). The RNLI is an odd case in that a. It is swamped with donations and b. Most of its work these days is rescuing pleasure sailors who could quite reasonably be made to insure themselves for rescue expenses rather than getting a freebie. So it is very creditable that it is looking to spend a bit of money on people who really need it.
You have to despair that people manage too be racist even about charity
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
Well of course that majority LD government would first Revoke A50 and then introduce PR to prevent anyone else winning a majority on less than 50% of the vote.
Sweet justice.
So no more Referendums on changing the voting system, huh?
Because they lost last time? I see a pattern emerging here.....
Well, the referendum was on AV, which is shit, but yeah. They lost. That means the people want parties to have full control on 35% of the vote. That's what we voted for, so if the Lib Dems achieve it, it's legitimate that they can do what the fuck they like.
Which, confusingly, includes changing the voting system.
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
Well of course that majority LD government would first Revoke A50 and then introduce PR to prevent anyone else winning a majority on less than 50% of the vote.
Sweet justice.
So no more Referendums on changing the voting system, huh?
Because they lost last time? I see a pattern emerging here.....
Well if you don't like it, vote Tory, Labour or BXP.
I've spent most of my adult life wasting my vote in safe seats - I'd be very happy to see a fairer voting system.
The move to universal suffrage was achieved without any referendums so I don't think they are needed for PR. If a party offering PR wins a majority under FPTP the irony would be delicious.
3. Most important. It would remove the possibility of a government with 35% support implementing policy that is opposed by 65% - including a Faragist party crashing us out of the EU. That would need at least 50% support in a PR parliament.
At last, we're being honest.
Let's abuse the system to make sure leavers never get anywhere near power.
Let's overturn the result of a referendum in which over 50% 37.5% of people voted to leave, using a mandate taken from just 35% of the population, then let's change the law to prevent anyone from ever doing the same thing again.
Remainer "democracy" in action.
FTFY
The opinions of those who can't be arsed to vote matter?
I think the Lib Dems are thinking one step ahead. Revoke may seem 'extreme' now but if parliament never gets in a position where it can pass a deal, the argument will eventually be between revoke and no deal.
If it comes to No Deal or revoke, revoke is recoverable from Brexiters just need to win an election.
From No Deal the situation is harder and would be more sxoensive
A very complicated situation because the court could rule the prorogation was lawful in England and unlawful in Scotland .
The court will be desperate to avoid that situation because that would mean it would have to rule it unlawful for the whole UK.
They will try and come to a decision that can rule the same on both counts but of course that might not happen .
The Supreme Court is the ultimate bastion of the English privileged classes. It will never go against the government and the monarchy.
It did in the Gina Miller case ! And their decision won’t impact the monarchy , if they rule unlawful it will be on the governments heads not the Queen .
I have utmost respect for the SC , the judges probing of the QCs was outstanding in the GM case . The QCs were also excellent . I read daily the whole court proceedings , which was a very enlightening experience .
I share your view. The SC is very good.
Thanks . I will be following this case intently . I plan to watch the whole thing and also read the transcripts .
In the Gina Miller case you could get a sense of what the judges ruling might be , they don’t like to give too much away but you can read between the lines .
I think the Lib Dems are thinking one step ahead. Revoke may seem 'extreme' now but if parliament never gets in a position where it can pass a deal, the argument will eventually be between revoke and no deal.
If it comes to No Deal or revoke, revoke is recoverable from Brexiters just need to win an election.
From No Deal the situation is harder and would be more sxoensive
Just been out with a group of pensioners who are going to cancel their donations to RNLI because of the daily mail article. Well done daily mail you really should have thought it through before putting the whole operation at risk. Don’t know if the RNLI were wrong to spend 2% overseas but it’s going to hit their financial viability.
The Daily Mail know that nothing makes their readership angry quite like the thought of their money helping to stop brown kids from drowning.
Aka 'cockroaches', ™Katie Hopkins.
But by this short sighted desire for headlines they could actually ‘sink’ the whole operation
Do you think they give a shit? They want the headlines and to spread a bit more of their hate.
They clearly don’t but it really is short sighted. The twitter response is appalling. Reduce your donation by 2% and point out why but to stop donating because a small proportion goes into overseas projects does actually verge on the racist. It does raise some interesting points about who ‘owns’ a charity and controls its fund distribution.
I heard somewhere that if you collect for Children in Need you have to assure a lot of people that all the money goes to proper UK children (it doesn't, actually). The RNLI is an odd case in that a. It is swamped with donations and b. Most of its work these days is rescuing pleasure sailors who could quite reasonably be made to insure themselves for rescue expenses rather than getting a freebie. So it is very creditable that it is looking to spend a bit of money on people who really need it.
You have to despair that people manage too be racist even about charity
'Charity begins at home' always strikes me as a ridiculous mantra.
Charity at home isn't charity at all - it's simply keeping it in the family.
3. Most important. It would remove the possibility of a government with 35% support implementing policy that is opposed by 65% - including a Faragist party crashing us out of the EU. That would need at least 50% support in a PR parliament.
At last, we're being honest.
Let's abuse the system to make sure leavers never get anywhere near power.
Let's overturn the result of a referendum in which over 50% 37.5% of people voted to leave, using a mandate taken from just 35% of the population, then let's change the law to prevent anyone from ever doing the same thing again.
Remainer "democracy" in action.
FTFY
The opinions of those who can't be arsed to vote matter?
If the 'will of the people' was so strongly set for leaving the EU, you'd have thought more than 37.5% of them would be arsed to vote to Leave.
I think there's a good case to say that the 30% or so who didn't vote were not unhappy with the status quo. This is why any constitutional change needs an absolute majority of the electorate or a supermajority of those who vote (if it's a referendum), or a supermajority of MPs (If decided in the HoC) to pass.
one of the best things about FPTP is it drives people and parties towards the centre
I'm crying with laughter here. Did you miss the past few years?
2015 gave us a Conservative government, 2015 under PR would have given us a Con + UKIP coalition. The situation we have at the moment is unusual, however PR will lead to extreme parties being in coalition the norm rather than the exception.
If Boris comes back with a Deal, does the LibDem policy now require them to vote against it? Even if, because no further extension has been granted, the alternative is No Deal?
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
Well of course that majority LD government would first Revoke A50 and then introduce PR to prevent anyone else winning a majority on less than 50% of the vote.
Sweet justice.
So no more Referendums on changing the voting system, huh?
Because they lost last time? I see a pattern emerging here.....
There shouldn't've been a referendum the first time. MPs should choose between STV and AMS (it'll probably be the latter) and then introduce it.
one of the best things about FPTP is it drives people and parties towards the centre
I'm crying with laughter here. Did you miss the past few years?
2015 gave us a Conservative government, 2015 under PR would have given us a Con + UKIP coalition. The situation we have at the moment is unusual, however PR will lead to extreme parties being in coalition the norm rather than the exception.
You can’t reasonably extrapolate from the vote shares at previous elections to an equivalent PR election because people will vote differently under PR than they do under FPTP. In a FPTP system you have to vote tactically if you want your vote to count in many constituencies. Unless you account for tactical voting on all sides (plus the 'why bother voting - it won't make any difference crowd) any assessment of the same election that simply takes the existing votes and assigns them to some kind of PR Parliament is going to be deeply suspect.
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
Well of course that majority LD government would first Revoke A50 and then introduce PR to prevent anyone else winning a majority on less than 50% of the vote.
Sweet justice.
So no more Referendums on changing the voting system, huh?
Because they lost last time? I see a pattern emerging here.....
There shouldn't've been a referendum the first time. MPs should choose between STV and AMS (it'll probably be the latter) and then introduce it.
Isn't talk of what the LDs may or may not do on winning a majority on 35% of the vote somewhat premature? Given that they are polling 17 to 20%?.
I think you'll find "vote for us and we'll be happy with 30 seats" underwhelming. I know I do. No point not being ambitious in politics.
Yeah, that's the thing that's got some Brexiters wound up so badly about this. They aren't used to their opponents being as strident as they are.
I once played a football match against a really dirty team. They were all kicks and pinches when the ref wasn't looking. Totally unnecessary, since they were way better than us, but that's besides the point. After kicking us around for three quarters of the match, I came on as a sub and straight away dragged my studs down the calf of the biggest, meanest, dirtiest one of the lot. The howl was ear-splitting, but it was mostly not pain, but shocked surprise. A punch was thrown at me which I ducked. The ref has to restrain then red card them. The rest of the game was conducted fairly and cleanly.
I don't know what made me do it. Obviously the injustice of it, but I'd never normally act like that. But I learned something that day. The behaviour change when one person stood up to them was profound. This weekend has finally seen remainers stop acting like doormats, and it's glorious to behold. The Lib Dems have won my vote for sure, and if the Brexit thugs have felt the lash of the start of a fightback, good. I just hope we can take this into extra time.
one of the best things about FPTP is it drives people and parties towards the centre
I'm crying with laughter here. Did you miss the past few years?
2015 gave us a Conservative government, 2015 under PR would have given us a Con + UKIP coalition. The situation we have at the moment is unusual, however PR will lead to extreme parties being in coalition the norm rather than the exception.
You can’t reasonably extrapolate from the vote shares at previous elections to an equivalent PR election because people will vote differently under PR than they do under FPTP. In a FPTP system you have to vote tactically if you want your vote to count in many constituencies. Unless you account for tactical voting on all sides (plus the 'why bother voting - it won't make any difference crowd) any assessment of the same election that simply takes the existing votes and assigns them to some kind of PR Parliament is going to be deeply suspect.
I think you're proving my point. Under FPTP, people tend to vote for the more moderate party that is broadly aligned with their views as it increases the chance of being in government. Under PR, that incentive is taken away, so if I want to vote for the racist moonbat fascist diamond hard brexit party, I can, with a reasonable expectation the more moderate right wing parties will have to go into coalition with the moonbats in order to form a government.
This is precisely the point I was making at 21:48 - that PR will lead to increasingly extreme governments as people are less incentivised to vote for moderate parties.
If Boris comes back with a Deal, does the LibDem policy now require them to vote against it? Even if, because no further extension has been granted, the alternative is No Deal?
Sadly, the question becomes irrelevant once your first word is given due weight.
Anyway, on other election fronts, some updates from Canada where the campaign for the 21/10 GE is well under way;
A DART poll puts the Conservatives on 35% (down 4) and the Liberals on 32% (unchanged). NDP on 15% (nc), Greens 8% (+1) and the Bloc Quebecois on 23% in Quebec itself, The Liberals lead by seven points (40-33) in Ontario and by four points (32-28) in Quebec.
Nanos Research are doing a daily rolling poll and tonight's puts Trudeau's Liberals on 35%, Scheer's Conservatives on 32% and Singh's NDP on 17%. Their provincial polling is behind a paywall but it seems likely the Liberals will have a solid lead in Ontario and Quebec.
It's worth remembering of the 338 ridings in the Canadian Parliament, 121 are in Ontario and 78 in Quebec so 199 out of 338 in just two provinces so those provincial numbers are always important.
We actually have a Quebec only poll from two days ago which puts the Liberals nine points ahead of the Conservatives (33-24)
In 2015 the Liberals won 80 seats in Ontario on 44.8% of the vote with the Conservatives winning just 33 on 35% of the vote. In Quebec, the Liberals won 40 seats with 35.7% of the vote last time with the NDP second with 16 seats on 25.4% and the Bloc winning 10 seats on 19.3% and the Conservatives in fourth with 16.7% of the vote and 12 seats.
The Conservatives won 39 out of 48 seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan last time so there's not much capacity for further progress though I think they will pick up some seats in Manitoba as well.
one of the best things about FPTP is it drives people and parties towards the centre
I'm crying with laughter here. Did you miss the past few years?
2015 gave us a Conservative government, 2015 under PR would have given us a Con + UKIP coalition. The situation we have at the moment is unusual, however PR will lead to extreme parties being in coalition the norm rather than the exception.
You can’t reasonably extrapolate from the vote shares at previous elections to an equivalent PR election because people will vote differently under PR than they do under FPTP. In a FPTP system you have to vote tactically if you want your vote to count in many constituencies. Unless you account for tactical voting on all sides (plus the 'why bother voting - it won't make any difference crowd) any assessment of the same election that simply takes the existing votes and assigns them to some kind of PR Parliament is going to be deeply suspect.
I think you're proving my point. Under FPTP, people tend to vote for the more moderate party that is broadly aligned with their views as it increases the chance of being in government. Under PR, that incentive is taken away, so if I want to vote for the racist moonbat fascist diamond hard brexit party, I can, with a reasonable expectation the more moderate right wing parties will have to go into coalition with the moonbats in order to form a government.
This is precisely the point I was making at 21:48 - that PR will lead to increasingly extreme governments as people are less incentivised to vote for moderate parties.
With respect (!) that's rubbish. Here in North Dorset (one of the safest Tory seats in the country) who should I vote for if I don't like the current incarnation of Tories or any of their policies?
Answer: it doesn't make the slightest difference because my vote is a complete and utter waste. Millions of other voters, both left and right, are in a similar position; our votes don't count for anything!
one of the best things about FPTP is it drives people and parties towards the centre
I'm crying with laughter here. Did you miss the past few years?
2015 gave us a Conservative government, 2015 under PR would have given us a Con + UKIP coalition. The situation we have at the moment is unusual, however PR will lead to extreme parties being in coalition the norm rather than the exception.
But the Conservatives went full Ukip anyway? I'm sorry, but your thesis that FPTP provides moderate, centrist parties is entirely contingent on you forgetting about the past few years.
Meanwhile, the nature of democracy is that people have extreme views. Better to collect them within a small homogeneous party than risk them infiltrating and taking over one -- or both! -- main parties. The extremists have learned to game FPTP and gain disproportionate power. That is because disproportionate power is the name of the game in FPTP.
PR can't stop extremism, but it can keep it confined within its natural boundaries. FPTP has failed.
A very complicated situation because the court could rule the prorogation was lawful in England and unlawful in Scotland .
The court will be desperate to avoid that situation because that would mean it would have to rule it unlawful for the whole UK.
They will try and come to a decision that can rule the same on both counts but of course that might not happen .
The Supreme Court is the ultimate bastion of the English privileged classes. It will never go against the government and the monarchy.
And on what grounds do you make that claim? As has been pointed out it has and does go against the government on occasion. Your comment therefore sounds like some kind of satirist lampooning a revolutionary anarchist, just throw in some stuff about priviliged classes and so on for the authentic voice of the people feel etc, given it is immediately and easily proven to be false.
If Boris comes back with a Deal, does the LibDem policy now require them to vote against it? Even if, because no further extension has been granted, the alternative is No Deal?
I cannot imagine the situation will arise, but I'd assume the answer is yes. They won't cast a vote to see Brexit happen. Even if a non-vote will see an even worse Brexit happen. We know that because it has already been risked, and because they presumably believe, like some others do, that if we no deal Brexit then it will be a disaster and we will rejoin sooner.
A deal is worse than no deal in the eyes of some surprising people.
If LDEMs win a majority with 35% of the vote I suspect they will have a sudden re-think on this PR business and suddenly embrace FPTP.
There's certainly precedent for such a switch around, eg Canada. In fairness I think the SNP are still in favour of ditching FPTP even though it worked very well for them in 2015.
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
Well of course that majority LD government would first Revoke A50 and then introduce PR to prevent anyone else winning a majority on less than 50% of the vote.
Sweet justice.
So no more Referendums on changing the voting system, huh?
Because they lost last time? I see a pattern emerging here.....
Well maybe. It's a bit unclear what changes people think should or should not be subject to a referendum, given we are not exactly Switzerland when it comes to such things. I'm not one who will argue people are too thick to understand a different voting system as some argued in the AV referendum (not in those precise words, obviously), but the voting system does seem to me to be a kind of technical change which could reasonably be just implemented by the government of the day.
You can’t reasonably extrapolate from the vote shares at previous elections to an equivalent PR election because people will vote differently under PR than they do under FPTP. In a FPTP system you have to vote tactically if you want your vote to count in many constituencies. Unless you account for tactical voting on all sides (plus the 'why bother voting - it won't make any difference crowd) any assessment of the same election that simply takes the existing votes and assigns them to some kind of PR Parliament is going to be deeply suspect.
I think you're proving my point. Under FPTP, people tend to vote for the more moderate party that is broadly aligned with their views as it increases the chance of being in government. Under PR, that incentive is taken away, so if I want to vote for the racist moonbat fascist diamond hard brexit party, I can, with a reasonable expectation the more moderate right wing parties will have to go into coalition with the moonbats in order to form a government.
This is precisely the point I was making at 21:48 - that PR will lead to increasingly extreme governments as people are less incentivised to vote for moderate parties.
With respect (!) that's rubbish. Here in North Dorset (one of the safest Tory seats in the country) who should I vote for if I don't like the current incarnation of Tories or any of their policies?
Answer: it doesn't make the slightest difference because my vote is a complete and utter waste. Millions of other voters, both left and right, are in a similar position; our votes don't count for anything!
These are two different points.
Your point - that your vote is wasted if you live in a safe seat - is absolutely valid. And quite possibly contributed towards brexit as people for years felt as if their vote wasn't being listened to - finally they had a vote that acutally counted.
And it's a good reason to adopt PR.
My point still remains. Once we adopt a system that makes coalition government the norm rather than the exception fringe parties will have a great deal more power than they do now.
Yes, things have become more polarised in recent years. But that's nothing compared to how polarised they will be if every far right (or far left) crank party has a chance of becoming part of a coalition government.
To be honest, they're both dickheads and their rhetoric is as silly as the others.
It takes one to know one.
Guy Verohofstadt is a towering giant compared with most UK politicians.
As casino royale points out more robustly than I am about to, he is also an absolute fanatic. Whatever his positive qualities, fanaticism so devout is hardly positive. But I actually rather appreciate his fanaticism because he does not in any way attempt to disguise it. He believes in his cause with religious fervour, which can be problematic, but everyone knows what he is about.
I do recall it being funny seeing him lecture Tsipras in a rather insulting fashion about needing to implement Greek austerity.
If LDEMs win a majority with 35% of the vote I suspect they will have a sudden re-think on this PR business and suddenly embrace FPTP.
There's certainly precedent for such a switch around, eg Canada. In fairness I think the SNP are still in favour of ditching FPTP even though it worked very well for them in 2015.
It worked well for them in 2017 too. And probably will next election, too. Also, you have to credit the SNP for their commitment to Lords reform. They refuse to send peers to the Lords because they are against the Lords so constructed. That's the kind of consistency that deserves respect.
Anyway, on other election fronts, some updates from Canada where the campaign for the 21/10 GE is well under way;
A DART poll puts the Conservatives on 35% (down 4) and the Liberals on 32% (unchanged). NDP on 15% (nc), Greens 8% (+1) and the Bloc Quebecois on 23% in Quebec itself, The Liberals lead by seven points (40-33) in Ontario and by four points (32-28) in Quebec.
Nanos Research are doing a daily rolling poll and tonight's puts Trudeau's Liberals on 35%, Scheer's Conservatives on 32% and Singh's NDP on 17%. Their provincial polling is behind a paywall but it seems likely the Liberals will have a solid lead in Ontario and Quebec.
It's worth remembering of the 338 ridings in the Canadian Parliament, 121 are in Ontario and 78 in Quebec so 199 out of 338 in just two provinces so those provincial numbers are always important.
We actually have a Quebec only poll from two days ago which puts the Liberals nine points ahead of the Conservatives (33-24)
In 2015 the Liberals won 80 seats in Ontario on 44.8% of the vote with the Conservatives winning just 33 on 35% of the vote. In Quebec, the Liberals won 40 seats with 35.7% of the vote last time with the NDP second with 16 seats on 25.4% and the Bloc winning 10 seats on 19.3% and the Conservatives in fourth with 16.7% of the vote and 12 seats.
The Conservatives won 39 out of 48 seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan last time so there's not much capacity for further progress though I think they will pick up some seats in Manitoba as well.
Looks like Trudeau will be back in helped by leads in marginal ridings but will see a swing against Liberals and lose his majority
Catching up on Cameron in The Times. It’s tragic. He had no idea of the country he led. And he knows he will be remembered for just one thing. His only consolation is that he did not, quite, mess up the Scottish independence referendum. One day we may get passed Brexit, but the break-up of the UK would have been forever. That will be Johnson’s legacy instead.
Oh, he messed up the Scottish referendum with his lies - stay in the UK to remain in the EU - and his actions the morning after were all about kicking the Scots in the teeth with the EVEL business and saying they were second class within the UK. Plenty of unfinished business there ...
He also made a major strategic error earlier in refusing full devolution other than defence and foreign affairs, which would have defeated the status quo but also independence hands down.
I must say, I'm increasingly unconvinced by this argument. No matter how many powers Westminster devolves to Holyrood support for independence remains very high and the demands keep coming.
Many nationalist voters want independence precisely so they can control foreign affairs and defence policy.
Quite so. I wasn't too clear admittedly. I was thinking specifically about the context of the runup to the referendum and the lack of a max devo option in the referendum which Mr Cameron ruled out, I think, about a year before the vote. ith Brexit, so perhaps it wouldn't have made that much difference on reflection. But it looked like that at the time, I can assure you.)
But Mr Cameron's destroying the middle ground like that was a major contribution to the jump in the independence vote from about 22-25% at the Edinburgh Agreement to about 52% at the time of the great panic and the Vow by Mr Cameron et aliis.
The failure to offer such a positive option nearly lost Scotland in 2014, and it was only saved at the price of some serious breaches of good faith.
That reflects, arguably, on Mr Cameron's strategic thinking ...
Devo Max is something which we can (largely) all agree on in the abstract is a good idea but actually probably wouldn't move the dial either which way if it actually happened.
I expect a constitutional convention leading to so co-federal decision making powers (weighted) across Westminster, Holyrood, Stormont and Cardiff Bay on foreign and trade policy matters might provide a better answer.
It was devomax that saw Quebec vote 51% to 49% to stay in Canada in 1995 and today Quebec has more power thsn any other province and governs almost all of its own domestic affairs
The mandate is questionable. Does the lib dems managing to form a government on 30-ish% of the vote abnd revoke morally overrule a referendum where over 50% of people voted to leave?
The irony of the Lib Dems winning a majority on 35% and then implementing a program of government that isn't liked by a good proportion of the country would not be an irony. It would be a rich, fruity layer cake of irony, with irony icing, served with the most iron-y cutlery, washed down the finest glass of Chateau de Leave d'Tears. All those years the Tories have benefited from FPTP, and all this time people like me have been campaigning for PR, it would be the most exquisite of pleasures to see this happen.
Until the Brexit Party wins a majority next time around...
Nah, having Revoked, next law is electoral reform, and the end of FPTP.
Neatly ignoring the fact that Con+UKIP was 49.4% in 2015 and Con+BXP is still polling around the 50% mark. An amount I presume would be higher if the establishment stitch up you propose was allowed to happen.
Then you have nothing to fear from PR.
While I understand the merits of PR, one of the best things about FPTP is it drives people and parties towards the centre, because that's how you win. PR reduces the incentive to parties to reach out to their opponents in order to maximise their vote share and instead encourages alliances with minor fringe parties that will almost certainly be more extreme.
And how well is that working these last few years...?
Just been out with a group of pensioners who are going to cancel their donations to RNLI because of the daily mail article. Well done daily mail you really should have thought it through before putting the whole operation at risk. Don’t know if the RNLI were wrong to spend 2% overseas but it’s going to hit their financial viability.
The Daily Mail know that nothing makes their readership angry quite like the thought of their money helping to stop brown kids from drowning.
Aka 'cockroaches', ™Katie Hopkins.
But by this short sighted desire for headlines they could actually ‘sink’ the whole operation
Do you think they give a shit? They want the headlines and to spread a bit more of their hate.
They clearly don’t but it really is short sighted. The twitter response is appalling. Reduce your donation by 2% and point out why but to stop donating because a small proportion goes into overseas projects does actually verge on the racist. It does raise some interesting points about who ‘owns’ a charity and controls its fund distribution.
I heard somewhere that if you collect for Children in Need you have to assure a lot of people that all the money goes to proper UK children (it doesn't, actually). The RNLI is an odd case in that a. It is swamped with donations and b. Most of its work these days is rescuing pleasure sailors who could quite reasonably be made to insure themselves for rescue expenses rather than getting a freebie. So it is very creditable that it is looking to spend a bit of money on people who really need it.
You have to despair that people manage too be racist even about charity
Yes. Collecting for the food bank has similar problems. Several people were outraged when they discovered that donations made at the local co-op don't always stay in our town, but that they can be used to cover shortages at other places in the Tyne Valley. And that cash donations go centrally to Hexham. Quite a few stopped donating. Can't get my head around that TBH.
To be honest, they're both dickheads and their rhetoric is as silly as the others.
It takes one to know one.
Guy Verohofstadt is a towering giant compared with most UK politicians.
As casino royale points out more robustly than I am about to, he is also an absolute fanatic. Whatever his positive qualities, fanaticism so devout is hardly positive. But I actually rather appreciate his fanaticism because he does not in any way attempt to disguise it. He believes in his cause with religious fervour, which can be problematic, but everyone knows what he is about.
I do recall it being funny seeing him lecture Tsipras in a rather insulting fashion about needing to implement Greek austerity.
Verhofstadt is staunchly economically and socially liberal he may be staunchly anti Brexit but he is also staunchly anti socialism too
You can’t reasonably extrapolate from the vote shares at previous elections to an equivalent PR election because people will vote differently under PR than they do under FPTP. In a FPTP system you have to vote tactically if you want your vote to count in many constituencies. Unless you account for tactical voting on all sides (plus the 'why bother voting - it won't make any difference crowd) any assessment of the same election that simply takes the existing votes and assigns them to some kind of PR Parliament is going to be deeply suspect.
I think you're proving my point. Under FPTP, people tend to vote for the more moderate party that is broadly aligned with their views as it increases the chance of being in government. Under PR, that incentive is taken away, so if I want to vote for the racist moonbat fascist diamond hard brexit party, I can, with a reasonable expectation the more moderate right wing parties will have to go into coalition with the moonbats in order to form a government.
This is precisely the point I was making at 21:48 - that PR will lead to increasingly extreme governments as people are less incentivised to vote for moderate parties.
With respect (!) that's rubbish. Here in North Dorset (one of the safest Tory seats in the country) who should I vote for if I don't like the current incarnation of Tories or any of their policies?
Answer: it doesn't make the slightest difference because my vote is a complete and utter waste. Millions of other voters, both left and right, are in a similar position; our votes don't count for anything!
These are two different points.
Your point - that your vote is wasted if you live in a safe seat - is absolutely valid. And quite possibly contributed towards brexit as people for years felt as if their vote wasn't being listened to - finally they had a vote that acutally counted.
And it's a good reason to adopt PR.
My point still remains. Once we adopt a system that makes coalition government the norm rather than the exception fringe parties will have a great deal more power than they do now.
Yes, things have become more polarised in recent years. But that's nothing compared to how polarised they will be if every far right (or far left) crank party has a chance of becoming part of a coalition government.
That’s not true, coalitions have a habit of allowing the less contentious issues through but keeping more hardline options off the agenda.
Just look at the negotiations in 2010 and Cameron adding items such as a referendum in the 2-15 ready for it to be vetoed as part of the next stage of coalition discussions
Just been out with a group of pensioners who are going to cancel their donations to RNLI because of the daily mail article. Well done daily mail you really should have thought it through before putting the whole operation at risk. Don’t know if the RNLI were wrong to spend 2% overseas but it’s going to hit their financial viability.
The Daily Mail know that nothing makes their readership angry quite like the thought of their money helping to stop brown kids from drowning.
Aka 'cockroaches', ™Katie Hopkins.
But by this short sighted desire for headlines they could actually ‘sink’ the whole operation
Do you think they give a shit? They want the headlines and to spread a bit more of their hate.
They clearly don’t but it really is short sighted. The twitter response is appalling. Reduce your donation by 2% and point out why but to stop donating because a small proportion goes into overseas projects does actually verge on the racist. It does raise some interesting points about who ‘owns’ a charity and controls its fund distribution.
I heard somewhere that if you collect for Children in Need you have to assure a lot of people that all the money goes to proper UK children (it doesn't, actually). The RNLI is an odd case in that a. It is swamped with donations and b. Most of its work these days is rescuing pleasure sailors who could quite reasonably be made to insure themselves for rescue expenses rather than getting a freebie. So it is very creditable that it is looking to spend a bit of money on people who really need it.
You have to despair that people manage too be racist even about charity
Yes. Collecting for the food bank has similar problems. Several people were outraged when they discovered that donations made at the local co-op don't always stay in our town, but that they can be used to cover shortages at other places in the Tyne Valley. And that cash donations go centrally to Hexham. Quite a few stopped donating. Can't get my head around that TBH.
The headlines for the Lib Dems are perfect. Unambiguous; no explanation needed.
If you want this nonsense to end; vote Lib Dem.
You think revocation would be the end? That's cute!
It’s the perfect question to destroy the lib dems with from this moment on, so what exactly do you think happens after you revoke?
Easy. We stop wasting all this money on ghost ferry contracts, medicine stockpiling, charter flights, etc. and spend it on making this country better such as NHS and infrastructure investments.
While also sending a billion pounds a month to Brussels?
Not this fake news again.
Its not fake.
Yes it is. Its designed to mislead people that we spend a ton of money on EU membership and get nothing back.
It’s misleading. It’s pathetic. It’s dangerous.
We do spend a ton of money on EU membership.
We may get a fraction of our own money back on priorities not chosen by our representatives but that doesn't change that we spend a ton of money on EU membership.
Considering we are having to spend MORE replicating what we already get - I think that says it all. As I said, misleading, dangerous, pathetic.
No we're not, that's fake news.
See what I mean?
That you just made up bulls**t?
Have a source for that claim?
If you can make up bullsh**t so can I.
I didn’t mean the finically cost. I don’t for a second think there is such thing as brexit dividend.
But if Lib Dem’s revoke that is not the end of the political crisis. We are still a split brexit Britain in the middle of a political and democratic crisis. Neither no deal or revoke is closure, in fact both of those take us further from actual closure.
You can’t reasonably extrapolate from the vote shares at previous elections to an equivalent PR election because people will vote differently under PR than they do under FPTP. In a FPTP system you have to vote tactically if you want your vote to count in many constituencies. Unless you account for tactical voting on all sides (plus the 'why bother voting - it won't make any difference crowd) any assessment of the same election that simply takes the existing votes and assigns them to some kind of PR Parliament is going to be deeply suspect.
I think you're proving my point. Under FPTP, people tend to vote for the more moderate party that is broadly aligned with their views as it increases the chance of being in government. Under PR, that incentive is taken away, so if I want to vote for the racist moonbat fascist diamond hard brexit party, I can, with a reasonable expectation the more moderate right wing parties will have to go into coalition with the moonbats in order to form a government.
This is precisely the point I was making at 21:48 - that PR will lead to increasingly extreme governments as people are less incentivised to vote for moderate parties.
With respect (!) that's rubbish. Here in North Dorset (one of the safest Tory seats in the country) who should I vote for if I don't like the current incarnation of Tories or any of their policies?
Answer: it doesn't make the slightest difference because my vote is a complete and utter waste. Millions of other voters, both left and right, are in a similar position; our votes don't count for anything!
These are two different points.
Your point - that your vote is wasted if you live in a safe seat - is absolutely valid. And quite possibly contributed towards brexit as people for years felt as if their vote wasn't being listened to - finally they had a vote that acutally counted.
And it's a good reason to adopt PR.
My point still remains. Once we adopt a system that makes coalition government the norm rather than the exception fringe parties will have a great deal more power than they do now.
Yes, things have become more polarised in recent years. But that's nothing compared to how polarised they will be if every far right (or far left) crank party has a chance of becoming part of a coalition government.
We now have extremists running the government, and running the opposition.
Its only an accidental minority giving a de facto coalition that is stopping them
Anyway, on other election fronts, some updates from Canada where the campaign for the 21/10 GE is well under way;
A DART poll puts the Conservatives on 35% (down 4) and the Liberals on 32% (unchanged). NDP on 15% (nc), Greens 8% (+1) and the Bloc Quebecois on 23% in Quebec itself, The Liberals lead by seven points (40-33) in Ontario and by four points (32-28) in Quebec.
Nanos Research are doing a daily rolling poll and tonight's puts Trudeau's Liberals on 35%, Scheer's Conservatives on 32% and Singh's NDP on 17%. Their provincial polling is behind a paywall but it seems likely the Liberals will have a solid lead in Ontario and Quebec.
It's worth remembering of the 338 ridings in the Canadian Parliament, 121 are in Ontario and 78 in Quebec so 199 out of 338 in just two provinces so those provincial numbers are always important.
We actually have a Quebec only poll from two days ago which puts the Liberals nine points ahead of the Conservatives (33-24)
In 2015 the Liberals won 80 seats in Ontario on 44.8% of the vote with the Conservatives winning just 33 on 35% of the vote. In Quebec, the Liberals won 40 seats with 35.7% of the vote last time with the NDP second with 16 seats on 25.4% and the Bloc winning 10 seats on 19.3% and the Conservatives in fourth with 16.7% of the vote and 12 seats.
The Conservatives won 39 out of 48 seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan last time so there's not much capacity for further progress though I think they will pick up some seats in Manitoba as well.
Looks like Trudeau will be back in helped by leads in marginal ridings but will see a swing against Liberals and lose his majority
FPTP lesson here. The Libs are currently a 53% chance to win a majority, and 71% to win most seats, despite being marginally behind in vote share. This is mainly due to weakness in the Prairies, especially Alberta, where the Cons pile up huge majorities, often with the NDP in a distant second place.
Is there an emerging arb between "UK to leave the EU - not before 2022" and "Article 50 to be revoked"? The time available to revoke it and reinstate it and then leave doesn't seem to me to justify the 3.25/4.1 gap.
Anyway, on other election fronts, some updates from Canada where the campaign for the 21/10 GE is well under way;
A DART poll puts the Conservatives on 35% (down 4) and the Liberals on 32% (unchanged). NDP on 15% (nc), Greens 8% (+1) and the Bloc Quebecois on 23% in Quebec itself, The Liberals lead by seven points (40-33) in Ontario and by four points (32-28) in Quebec.
Nanos Research are doing a daily rolling poll and tonight's puts Trudeau's Liberals on 35%, Scheer's Conservatives on 32% and Singh's NDP on 17%. Their provincial polling is behind a paywall but it seems likely the Liberals will have a solid lead in Ontario and Quebec.
It's worth remembering of the 338 ridings in the Canadian Parliament, 121 are in Ontario and 78 in Quebec so 199 out of 338 in just two provinces so those provincial numbers are always important.
We actually have a Quebec only poll from two days ago which puts the Liberals nine points ahead of the Conservatives (33-24)
In 2015 the Liberals won 80 seats in Ontario on 44.8% of the vote with the Conservatives winning just 33 on 35% of the vote. In Quebec, the Liberals won 40 seats with 35.7% of the vote last time with the NDP second with 16 seats on 25.4% and the Bloc winning 10 seats on 19.3% and the Conservatives in fourth with 16.7% of the vote and 12 seats.
The Conservatives won 39 out of 48 seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan last time so there's not much capacity for further progress though I think they will pick up some seats in Manitoba as well.
Looks like Trudeau will be back in helped by leads in marginal ridings but will see a swing against Liberals and lose his majority
FPTP lesson here. The Libs are currently a 53% chance to win a majority, and 71% to win most seats, despite being marginally behind in vote share. This is mainly due to weakness in the Prairies, especially Alberta, where the Cons pile up huge majorities, often with the NDP in a distant second place.
Yes fair to say Alberta and Trudeau have never been exactly close
I don't know if someone will correct me but I understand the judges in the court of session are chosen directly by the first minister for Scotland?
They’re first recommended by the Judiciary Board to the First Minister but Nicola Sturgeon can’t pick who she likes outside of those recommended.
On a different matter for those that like court room drama . Another case is due to be heard in terms of allowing a judge from the Court of Sessions to send the extension letter if Johnson refuses to .
We’ll soon be hearing lots about the nobile officium. Normally the government would be given 21 days to respond , the judges have cut that to 7 days .
Now if Bozo continues to infer he’ll refuse to ask for an extension the court might support the petitioners.
one of the best things about FPTP is it drives people and parties towards the centre
I'm crying with laughter here. Did you miss the past few years?
2015 gave us a Conservative government, 2015 under PR would have given us a Con + UKIP coalition. The situation we have at the moment is unusual, however PR will lead to extreme parties being in coalition the norm rather than the exception.
You can’t reasonably extrapolate from the vote shares at previous elections to an equivalent PR election because people will vote differently under PR than they do under FPTP. In a FPTP system you have to vote tactically if you want your vote to count in many constituencies. Unless you account for tactical voting on all sides (plus the 'why bother voting - it won't make any difference crowd) any assessment of the same election that simply takes the existing votes and assigns them to some kind of PR Parliament is going to be deeply suspect.
I think you're proving my point. Under FPTP, people tend to vote for the more moderate party that is broadly aligned with their views as it increases the chance of being in government. Under PR, that incentive is taken away, so if I want to vote for the racist moonbat fascist diamond hard brexit party, I can, with a reasonable expectation the more moderate right wing parties will have to go into coalition with the moonbats in order to form a government.
This is precisely the point I was making at 21:48 - that PR will lead to increasingly extreme governments as people are less incentivised to vote for moderate parties.
Is there any evidence that the government of countries such use some form of PR is more extreme?
You can’t reasonably extrapolate from the vote shares at previous elections to an equivalent PR election because people will vote differently under PR than they do under FPTP. In a FPTP system you have to vote tactically if you want your vote to count in many constituencies. Unless you account for tactical voting on all sides (plus the 'why bother voting - it won't make any difference crowd) any assessment of the same election that simply takes the existing votes and assigns them to some kind of PR Parliament is going to be deeply suspect.
I think you're proving my point. Under FPTP, people tend to vote for the more moderate party that is broadly aligned with their views as it increases the chance of being in government. Under PR, that incentive is taken away, so if I want to vote for the racist moonbat fascist diamond hard brexit party, I can, with a reasonable expectation the more moderate right wing parties will have to go into coalition with the moonbats in order to form a government.
This is precisely the point I was making at 21:48 - that PR will lead to increasingly extreme governments as people are less incentivised to vote for moderate parties.
With respect (!) that's rubbish. Here in North Dorset (one of the safest Tory seats in the country) who should I vote for if I don't like the current incarnation of Tories or any of their policies?
Answer: it doesn't make the slightest difference because my vote is a complete and utter waste. Millions of other voters, both left and right, are in a similar position; our votes don't count for anything!
These are two different points.
Your point - that your vote is wasted if you live in a safe seat - is absolutely valid. And quite possibly contributed towards brexit as people for years felt as if their vote wasn't being listened to - finally they had a vote that acutally counted.
And it's a good reason to adopt PR.
My point still remains. Once we adopt a system that makes coalition government the norm rather than the exception fringe parties will have a great deal more power than they do now.
Yes, things have become more polarised in recent years. But that's nothing compared to how polarised they will be if every far right (or far left) crank party has a chance of becoming part of a coalition government.
Whilst broadly proportional, STV imposes an effective threshold (depending on seat size) that would exclude cranks. It also allows votes to be transferred rather than wasted, so the cranky voters still stand a chance of making a more moderate second choice.
Well maybe. It's a bit unclear what changes people think should or should not be subject to a referendum, given we are not exactly Switzerland when it comes to such things. I'm not one who will argue people are too thick to understand a different voting system as some argued in the AV referendum (not in those precise words, obviously), but the voting system does seem to me to be a kind of technical change which could reasonably be just implemented by the government of the day.
The advantage of a referendum for voting systems is that it gives you an external check on the governing party rigging the system for its own benefit.
Apart from that it's totally unsuitable - obscure, nerdy and unintuitive - but it feels like you want *some* kind of process that buffers the government's self-interest.
The headlines for the Lib Dems are perfect. Unambiguous; no explanation needed.
If you want this nonsense to end; vote Lib Dem.
You think revocation would be the end? That's cute!
It’s the perfect question to destroy the lib dems with from this moment on, so what exactly do you think happens after you revoke?
Easy. We stop wasting all this money on ghost ferry contracts, medicine stockpiling, charter flights, etc. and spend it on making this country better such as NHS and infrastructure investments.
While also sending a billion pounds a month to Brussels?
Not this fake news again.
Its not fake.
Yes it is. Its designed to mislead people that we spend a ton of money on EU membership and get nothing back.
It’s misleading. It’s pathetic. It’s dangerous.
We do spend a ton of money on EU membership.
We may get a fraction of our own money back on priorities not chosen by our representatives but that doesn't change that we spend a ton of money on EU membership.
Considering we are having to spend MORE replicating what we already get - I think that says it all. As I said, misleading, dangerous, pathetic.
No we're not, that's fake news.
See what I mean?
That you just made up bulls**t?
Have a source for that claim?
If you can make up bullsh**t so can I.
I didn’t mean the finically cost. I don’t for a second think there is such thing as brexit dividend.
But if Lib Dem’s revoke that is not the end of the political crisis. We are still a split brexit Britain in the middle of a political and democratic crisis. Neither no deal or revoke is closure, in fact both of those take us further from actual closure.
Except that if the Lib Dems have won a majority they are fully entitled to revoke. If at the election after the Brexiteers still want to leave, then all they have to do is vote in their majority... Not sure, after this fiasco of the past 3 years that it would be that popular.
Comments
So that's almost everything that's been done by governments during the whole of my lifetime. Save perhaps the 5 years of the coalition government.
Oddly, though, the PM during those years is also getting a good kicking on here from some of the same people.
At that point it was a case of Le Pen or Macron.
Le Pen crashed and burned because of her anti EU rhetoric and fears she might call a referendum on at least Eurozone membership .
Now she’s dropped that as she realizes it’s not popular , indeed the rest of the EU has become more pro EU after seeing the horror show in the UK .
Have you ever seen him give a speech on his precious European project? His arms flail about everywhere - as does his spittle - as he rants and raves with inflective zeal. He comes across as a Farage or Bill Cash (and then some) just from the exact opposite side of the argument. He also has a strange habit of referring to himself in the third person.
As a personality he's someone who's probably quite fun over a pint of Belgian lager, or racing cars down at the track. But, get him onto his political hobbyhorses, and everyone leaves the room muttering under their breath and shaking their heads; cringing and embarrassed.
I think it's been a good day for the Party - Revoke if we win a majority is a clear policy. The pro-No Dealers won't support us and if we can work with others to get a second vote on a meaningful WA which can be clearly communicated to the electorate rather than 585 pages of legalese, so much the better.
The point remains as it has since March 2017 - the EU have consistently said it is up to the UK to find solutions to the problems leaving the EU (which we chose to do) will cause. If we had spent some time doing that instead of worrying about the unity of the Conservative Party we might have got somewhere.
Because they lost last time? I see a pattern emerging here.....
Did you miss the past few years?
I have utmost respect for the SC , the judges probing of the QCs was outstanding in the GM case . The QCs were also excellent . I read daily the whole court proceedings , which was a very enlightening experience .
You have to despair that people manage too be racist even about charity
Which, confusingly, includes changing the voting system.
I've spent most of my adult life wasting my vote in safe seats - I'd be very happy to see a fairer voting system.
The move to universal suffrage was achieved without any referendums so I don't think they are needed for PR. If a party offering PR wins a majority under FPTP the irony would be delicious.
From No Deal the situation is harder and would be more sxoensive
In the Gina Miller case you could get a sense of what the judges ruling might be , they don’t like to give too much away but you can read between the lines .
Charity at home isn't charity at all - it's simply keeping it in the family.
I think there's a good case to say that the 30% or so who didn't vote were not unhappy with the status quo. This is why any constitutional change needs an absolute majority of the electorate or a supermajority of those who vote (if it's a referendum), or a supermajority of MPs (If decided in the HoC) to pass.
I once played a football match against a really dirty team. They were all kicks and pinches when the ref wasn't looking. Totally unnecessary, since they were way better than us, but that's besides the point. After kicking us around for three quarters of the match, I came on as a sub and straight away dragged my studs down the calf of the biggest, meanest, dirtiest one of the lot. The howl was ear-splitting, but it was mostly not pain, but shocked surprise. A punch was thrown at me which I ducked. The ref has to restrain then red card them. The rest of the game was conducted fairly and cleanly.
I don't know what made me do it. Obviously the injustice of it, but I'd never normally act like that. But I learned something that day. The behaviour change when one person stood up to them was profound. This weekend has finally seen remainers stop acting like doormats, and it's glorious to behold. The Lib Dems have won my vote for sure, and if the Brexit thugs have felt the lash of the start of a fightback, good. I just hope we can take this into extra time.
This is precisely the point I was making at 21:48 - that PR will lead to increasingly extreme governments as people are less incentivised to vote for moderate parties.
A DART poll puts the Conservatives on 35% (down 4) and the Liberals on 32% (unchanged). NDP on 15% (nc), Greens 8% (+1) and the Bloc Quebecois on 23% in Quebec itself, The Liberals lead by seven points (40-33) in Ontario and by four points (32-28) in Quebec.
Nanos Research are doing a daily rolling poll and tonight's puts Trudeau's Liberals on 35%, Scheer's Conservatives on 32% and Singh's NDP on 17%. Their provincial polling is behind a paywall but it seems likely the Liberals will have a solid lead in Ontario and Quebec.
It's worth remembering of the 338 ridings in the Canadian Parliament, 121 are in Ontario and 78 in Quebec so 199 out of 338 in just two provinces so those provincial numbers are always important.
We actually have a Quebec only poll from two days ago which puts the Liberals nine points ahead of the Conservatives (33-24)
In 2015 the Liberals won 80 seats in Ontario on 44.8% of the vote with the Conservatives winning just 33 on 35% of the vote. In Quebec, the Liberals won 40 seats with 35.7% of the vote last time with the NDP second with 16 seats on 25.4% and the Bloc winning 10 seats on 19.3% and the Conservatives in fourth with 16.7% of the vote and 12 seats.
The Conservatives won 39 out of 48 seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan last time so there's not much capacity for further progress though I think they will pick up some seats in Manitoba as well.
Answer: it doesn't make the slightest difference because my vote is a complete and utter waste. Millions of other voters, both left and right, are in a similar position; our votes don't count for anything!
I'm sorry, but your thesis that FPTP provides moderate, centrist parties is entirely contingent on you forgetting about the past few years.
Meanwhile, the nature of democracy is that people have extreme views. Better to collect them within a small homogeneous party than risk them infiltrating and taking over one -- or both! -- main parties.
The extremists have learned to game FPTP and gain disproportionate power. That is because disproportionate power is the name of the game in FPTP.
PR can't stop extremism, but it can keep it confined within its natural boundaries. FPTP has failed.
A deal is worse than no deal in the eyes of some surprising people.
Your point - that your vote is wasted if you live in a safe seat - is absolutely valid. And quite possibly contributed towards brexit as people for years felt as if their vote wasn't being listened to - finally they had a vote that acutally counted.
And it's a good reason to adopt PR.
My point still remains. Once we adopt a system that makes coalition government the norm rather than the exception fringe parties will have a great deal more power than they do now.
Yes, things have become more polarised in recent years. But that's nothing compared to how polarised they will be if every far right (or far left) crank party has a chance of becoming part of a coalition government.
I do recall it being funny seeing him lecture Tsipras in a rather insulting fashion about needing to implement Greek austerity.
Also, you have to credit the SNP for their commitment to Lords reform. They refuse to send peers to the Lords because they are against the Lords so constructed. That's the kind of consistency that deserves respect.
Can't get my head around that TBH.
Just look at the negotiations in 2010 and Cameron adding items such as a referendum in the 2-15 ready for it to be vetoed as part of the next stage of coalition discussions
*Stupid
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/1172473614274310145?s=21
But if Lib Dem’s revoke that is not the end of the political crisis. We are still a split brexit Britain in the middle of a political and democratic crisis. Neither no deal or revoke is closure, in fact both of those take us further from actual closure.
Its only an accidental minority giving a de facto coalition that is stopping them
This is mainly due to weakness in the Prairies, especially Alberta, where the Cons pile up huge majorities, often with the NDP in a distant second place.
https://youtu.be/p6mkC2ULOKw
On a different matter for those that like court room drama . Another case is due to be heard in terms of allowing a judge from the Court of Sessions to send the extension letter if Johnson refuses to .
We’ll soon be hearing lots about the nobile officium. Normally the government would be given 21 days to respond , the judges have cut that to 7 days .
Now if Bozo continues to infer he’ll refuse to ask for an extension the court might support the petitioners.
https://twitter.com/StreathamLabour/status/1173285556022861825?s=20
https://twitter.com/AbdiDuale_/status/1173323066098798599?s=20
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
Apart from that it's totally unsuitable - obscure, nerdy and unintuitive - but it feels like you want *some* kind of process that buffers the government's self-interest.
Nuovo Thread